[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 43 (Monday, March 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1619-S1626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ECONOMIC GROWTH, REGULATORY RELIEF, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

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

       A bill (S. 2155) to promote economic growth, provide 
     tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Crapo) modified amendment No. 2151, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Crapo amendment No. 2152 (to amendment No. 2151), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week, we will complete work on an 
important bipartisan bill. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from 
Idaho, Mr. Crapo, who is chairman of the Banking Committee, they passed 
it out of the Banking Committee, and now it is time for us to do our 
job and pass it out of the Senate. Last week, we voted to proceed, and 
we will vote to pass it out of the Senate in the next few days.
  Senator Crapo explained why this work is so important. Since the 
passage of the Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010--as we all recall, after 
the great recession of 2008, when Wall Street melted down together with 
our financial institutions, there were reform efforts undertaken known 
as Dodd-Frank--Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank--which imposed 
regulatory requirements on banks large and small. The problem is, the 
small community banks--the ones that are disproportionately harmed by 
this overregulation--weren't the cause of the great recession, the 
financial meltdown of 2010 and 2009, but they are the collateral 
damage. What has happened is, there has been a lot of consolidation. 
Many small community banks and credit unions have simply had to close 
or been consolidated with other larger banks and institutions. It has 
taken a toll on our economy, and it has taken a toll on our communities 
across the country. What happens is, these community banks have less 
money to loan because they have had to use the money they would loan to 
hire more people to help them comply with all the unnecessary redtape 
because of the Dodd-Frank overregulation. Some have had to basically 
defer that sort of investment in their communities and

[[Page S1620]]

others have had to shutter completely because of the financial burden.
  The second-order effect is, some people don't have access to capital; 
that is, to loans they need. They can't get credit they need in order 
to start a small business, grow an existing business, or even get a 
mortgage to buy their first home.
  Let's be clear, though, about which financial institutions this bill 
is tailored toward helping. It is small community banks, midsized 
regional ones, as well as credit unions. The bill we are considering 
somehow does not exempt large banks from those regulations, and saying 
it does, which some have said, doesn't make it so. It is a claim too 
eagerly peddled by those who want to maintain the status quo, to the 
detriment of our smaller communities and small businesses. Large banks 
are still subject to measures designed to protect the stability of the 
overall economy, like rigorous stress testing.
  After all, this bill is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory 
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. What it actually does is rightsize 
those regulations. It does this by providing targeted exemptions from 
risk-weighted capital requirements, for example, and the Volcker rule. 
It also provides a qualified mortgage safe harbor for small banks and 
raises the SIFI threshold so community banks are not lumped into the 
same overall category as giant financial institutions operating on Wall 
Street.
  The majority leader recently said: ``In an era of online banking and 
multinational corporations, smaller institutions remain uniquely able 
to build community connections,'' and that is important to our civic 
fabric as well as the economies in rural and smalltown America.
  Based on research, community banks provide more than half of all 
small business loans. That could translate into small banks getting to 
know their customers on a personal level and then extending credit to 
entrepreneurs and families who might not have access otherwise.
  That is certainly the situation in parts of my State, the State of 
Texas. I have heard from banks and communities there that are more than 
ready to finally be freed of the shackles of Dodd-Frank.
  As the chief executive officer of the Independent Bankers Association 
of Texas put it, ``Congress holds the key to unchain community banks 
from the burden pushing them toward consolidation''--in other words, 
mergers, forcing them to become big banks, which seems to me to be an 
odd way to deal with this problem, to be sure, or putting them out of 
business altogether.
  In the IBAT's view--Independent Bankers Association of Texas--rules 
meant to curb the abuses of banks deemed too big to fail have instead 
trickled down to harm their much smaller counterparts. Because of this 
effect, in essence, community banks have become too small to survive as 
mergers and acquisitions have occurred all over the map.
  Independent bankers have reported that since 2009, Texas has lost 
nearly one-third of its banks--one-third of its banks. They have said 
that based on Federal data on rural counties, approximately one-third 
don't have a local credit union or bank at all. This bill addresses 
that situation. It enjoys wide bipartisan support, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting passage before the end of the 
week.


                             Fix NICS Bill

  Madam President, on another matter, I want to emphasize another point 
and talk about a new milestone reached and announce some good news.
  We have now reached 64 total cosponsors for a bill I have introduced 
with the junior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, called the Fix 
NICS, which is the background check reform bill we cosponsored 
together.
  In an institution like this, during polarized times, it is pretty 
remarkable that you have 64 Senators--32 Democrats and 32 Republicans--
coming together and saying: Yes, we have a problem, and, yes, we want 
to work together to fix it.
  This is the kind of legislation the Nation has been waiting for, as 
people continue to be frustrated, frightened, and depressed by random 
acts of violence that have broken out in and around some of our 
churches, our cities, and our schools. I am talking about shootings 
like those that occurred at Sutherland Springs, TX, outside of San 
Antonio, in Las Vegas, and, of course, Parkland, FL. With Fix NICS, we 
are saying the status quo is not acceptable.
  I am happy to hear my friend the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, 
say there are other things he and his colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would like to do. I would just quote to him some ancient 
wisdom; that ``the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single 
step.'' We ought to take that first step and do what we can do today 
and do what is achievable in order to make our communities safer.
  I have talked about it before, but if the background check system had 
been working the way Congress intended, the shooter who murdered 26 
people as they worshiped on Sunday morning in Sutherland Springs, 
outside of San Antonio, and injured 20 more would not have been able to 
legally purchase firearms because the background check system would 
have reflected the fact that he was a convicted felon, he had been 
convicted of domestic violence, and he had been in a mental 
institution. All three of those things are disqualifiers from being 
able to legally purchase firearms under current law, but if the 
background system isn't uploaded with the appropriate information for 
the FBI to maintain, then those convictions will never be discovered, 
and someone can merely lie their way into purchasing firearms and 
committing atrocities like we saw in Sutherland Springs.
  Fix NICS is designed to make sure convicted felons can't get access 
to firearms because, under current law, they are disallowed from doing 
so. It is designed to make sure people who commit domestic violence 
can't buy a firearm because they are currently prohibited by law from 
doing so. It is designed to make sure people who are dishonorably 
discharged from the military can't legally get a firearm because the 
current law prohibits them from doing so.
  Sometimes criminals with domestic abuse convictions, records of 
mental illness, and violent erratic behavior slip through the cracks 
and get their hands on guns, despite what the law already prohibits. 
That is why it is so important for us to pass this legislation now--
again, with 64 cosponsors of the legislation, evenly divided between 
Republicans and Democrats.
  The effectiveness of doing this sort of background check system has 
been confirmed by academic research. A recent study by RAND Corporation 
found evidence that dealer background checks may decrease firearm 
homicides by as much as 20 percent or more. In other words, it saves 
lives. One specific part of that study further suggested that enforcing 
background checks for felony records may have a similar diminishing 
effect. In other words, enforcement matters, and enforcement is what we 
are trying to ensure.
  We have learned from Sutherland Springs that the NICS system is not 
operating as Congress intended and that the military, in this instance, 
was not uploading certain records, but they are not alone. Recent news 
reports out of places like Ohio have shown it is often the case at the 
State level as well. We know, a few years back, the shooter at Virginia 
Tech, near Washington, DC, had been adjudicated mentally ill by the 
State of Virginia, but the State had never uploaded that information on 
the background check system, so he was able to purchase a firearm.
  This bill will save lives. I know my friend the Democratic leader, 
the minority leader, has said: Well, it is not enough, but if it saves 
lives, isn't it a good start? I am grateful to him for cosponsoring the 
legislation. You couldn't tell he cosponsored the legislation by his 
comments here, acting like this is somehow not a very important step, 
but it is because it will save lives.
  This bill has the backing of the President as well, whom I have 
spoken to personally, and the minority and majority leaders in the 
Senate and is supported by gun groups across the spectrum from--yes, 
the National Rifle Association but also Everytown for Gun Safety. They 
are at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum when it comes to 
the Second Amendment. It is not just them. It is others like the 
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, the 
National Shooting Sports Foundation, the

[[Page S1621]]

National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Sheriffs' 
Association.
  It really is remarkable when you have groups with such widely 
divergent views, when it comes to the Second Amendment, come together 
and say: Well, this is where we can find common ground. This is where 
we can actually do something. That is reflected in the 64 bipartisan 
cosponsors we have for the bill.
  The bill would do this: First, it would require Federal agencies and 
States to produce NICS implementation plans, in other words, to fix 
what is broken, including measures to verify the accuracy of the 
records.
  It would hold Federal agencies accountable if they fail to upload the 
relevant information.
  I think it is accurate information, but I have heard that after the 
shooting in Sutherland Springs, the military has now gone back and 
uploaded 4,000 additional records into the NICS background check system 
that weren't previously loaded. Those are 4,000 people now in the 
system who, if they attempted to buy a firearm legally through a gun 
store or Federal licensed firearm dealer, would not be able to do so 
because there would be a hit on the FBI background check system.
  I think if we provided similar incentives to the States, we would see 
a similar increase in compliance and public safety continue to be 
enhanced.
  This bill would reward States that comply with their NICS 
implementation plan through Federal grants incentives. It would 
reauthorize and improve law enforcement programs to help State 
governments share relevant criminal record information. Let's not 
forget, this is not just a Federal problem.
  Finally, the bill would provide important technical assistance to 
Federal agencies and States that are working to comply with NICS 
record-sharing requirements.
  We have all the support we need. What we need is a vote. I know that 
despite the minority leader's comments here today, he does not oppose 
this bill. He says it is merely not enough, but why can't we pass this 
bill that we all agree on and then build from there? I am not afraid of 
having any debate or any vote on any matter related to the Second 
Amendment. That is why our constituents sent us here, to debate and to 
vote and to be held accountable for those votes.
  I know there is pressure from those who want more controversial 
measures to be added, but frankly they are ones that can't pass the 
Senate, much less the House, or be signed into the law. I would hope we 
focus--focus our attention on what is achievable, what is bipartisan, 
what brings people together at the opposite ends of the ideological 
spectrum and pass the Fix NICS bill. Again, NICS is the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System. It will improve our 
background check system and in the process save lives.
  If we did nothing else--and I am not advocating that for a moment, 
but if we did nothing else in this space other than pass this 
background check reform system, we would save lives. I don't know why 
that is not compelling enough to everyone to actually get it done. I 
hope it is, and I hope we do so without further delay.
  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.
  Ms. WARREN. Madam 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.
  Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Madam President.
  Ten years ago today, at breakfast tables all around the country, 
Americans read a shocking headline: ``Fed assumes the role of lender of 
last resort.'' The biggest investment banks on Wall Street were getting 
their first taxpayer bailout, but some of the banks were so addicted to 
poisonous scam mortgages that even that bailout wasn't enough. Within a 
week, Bear Stearns--an 85-year-old fixture on Wall Street--would fall, 
and the financial crisis would begin.
  Within a year, American workers' retirement accounts had lost $2.7 
trillion, almost one-third of their value. No one bailed them out. 
Within 2 years, 8.8 million Americans had lost their jobs. No one 
bailed them out. Within 3 years, more than 4 million homes had been 
lost to foreclosures, and millions more were in danger. No one bailed 
the homeowners out. Now, to mark the 10th anniversary of that 
devastating crisis, the Senate is on the verge of rolling back the 
rules on the big banks again.

  Last week I talked about how this bill guts important consumer 
protections, how it weakens the oversight of banks with up to a quarter 
of a trillion dollars in assets, and how it could set the stage for 
another financial crisis, just like past bipartisan bills to roll back 
the financial rules. But the bill will also roll back the rules on the 
very biggest banks in the country, the true Wall Street banks, 
including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and the rest--banks that taxpayers 
spent $180 billion bailing out in 2008. And no matter what the 
supporters of this bill say, there are three glaring parts of this bill 
that without question help the very biggest Wall Street banks.
  First, this bill opens the door to easing up on big banks' stress 
tests. Right now, about 40 of the biggest banks go through stress tests 
every year, simulating a financial crisis and making sure that if it 
happened, they could survive. This bill says that 25 of them can just 
skip the hard test from now on, and the remaining 15 or so--well, they 
don't necessarily have to do those tests every single year. For the 
banks that are still going to be doing stress tests, they can now be 
done, under this bill, ``periodically.'' Who decides what 
``periodically'' means--the former investment bankers Donald Trump has 
nominated to lead the Fed and to head up the Fed's supervisory work? 
Does that make you feel safe?
  Second, the bill gives the biggest banks a new legal tool to fight 
for weaker rules. Right now, the law says that the Fed ``may'' tailor 
capital and other rules for the biggest banks. This bill says the Fed 
``shall'' tailor the rules for the banks with more than $250 billion in 
assets--the very biggest banks in this country. That one word--the 
switch from ``may'' to ``shall''--may not seem like much, but it means 
everything to the high-priced lawyers who represent these banks.
  Here is what Jeffrey Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School, had 
to say about that one-word change:

       This apparently minor change is likely to produce 
     significant degradation of financial stability, especially 
     over the long run. The change would expose the Fed to 
     litigation challenges to its enhanced standards, in 
     particular whether they are already adequately tailored. . . 
     . The statute thus empowers the largest firms which pose the 
     biggest risks to bargain with the Fed for laxer standards 
     with the threat of a well-resourced litigation challenge in 
     the background. Over time this bargaining for laxity will 
     produce a race-to-the-bottom dynamic that will dramatically 
     increase the chance of another financial crisis.

  Professor Gordon of Columbia Law School says that will dramatically 
increase the chance of another financial crisis.
  If you think the one-word change from ``may'' to ``shall'' won't 
change much, consider this: Opponents to the bill have been pointing 
out this problem loudly and publicly, but the bill's sponsors won't 
change it. They won't change that one word. Why? Because the giant 
banks want the change.
  The third bank giveaway in this bill undercuts capital requirements 
for the biggest banks. The best way to stop another taxpayer bailout of 
the big banks is to make sure they have enough capital on hand to 
withstand a crisis. That is why Congress and the regulators established 
tougher capital requirements for the big banks after the last financial 
crisis. This bill reverses direction, opening the door to big banks 
like JPMorgan and Citigroup facing much lower capital requirements than 
they do now. In fact, the independent Congressional Budget Office says 
there is a 50-percent chance that JPMorgan and Citigroup can take 
advantage of a provision in the bill to reduce their capital 
requirements.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial board--no fan of tough regulation--
wrote that the change proposed in the banking bill is dangerous and 
``will make the financial system more vulnerable in a panic.'' The 
Bloomberg editorial board says the bill ``chip[s] away at the bedrock 
of financial resilience--the equity capital that allows

[[Page S1622]]

banks to absorb losses and keep on lending in bad times.'' And the 
consequences could be huge. According to the FDIC, this provision could 
lower capital requirements for JPMorgan by $21.4 billion and for 
Citigroup by $8.6 billion.
  At the end of last week, the supporters of the bill introduced a new 
amendment that they claimed would address the problems in this bill, 
but that amendment did nothing to address these three glaring big-bank 
giveaways: The stress test provision is unchanged, the litigation 
provision is unchanged, and the capital requirements provision is 
unchanged. Victories for the big banks have been preserved 100 percent.
  But it is not just the big-bank giveaways that remain unaddressed in 
this new amendment. Over the last week, we have heard a lot of 
criticism about this bill from experts and from civil rights groups and 
from consumer advocates and from former regulators, and, most 
importantly, from our constituents back home. They don't like it. This 
banking bill undermines civil rights laws. It weakens consumers 
protections on mortgages and mobile home purchases. It rolls back rules 
on 25 of the 40 largest banks in the country. It does almost nothing to 
protect consumers. Let me be perfectly clear about this. The new 
amendment does not address a single one of these legitimate criticisms. 
It is a bunch of fig leaves designed to let supporters of the bill 
pretend that they have addressed those criticisms without actually 
addressing them. In some cases, these little fig leaves actually make 
things worse.
  Let's start with the fake fixes--first, mortgage discrimination. 
Mortgage discrimination is real in America. Some banks charge African 
Americans more for loans than they charge Whites with similar credit. 
Some deny loans to Latinos or to single women. How do we know that? 
Because banks have to disclose information about the loans they provide 
under something called the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA. Using 
HMDA data, a new report shows that in 61 different cities around the 
country, minority borrowers were more likely to be denied a mortgage 
than White borrowers with the same income. But this bill--the bill that 
is pending on the floor of the Senate--now exempts 85 percent of banks 
from reporting any HMDA data, making it much harder to discover and 
stamp out discrimination.
  Senator Cortez Masto had a great idea for fixing this: Take the HMDA 
provision out of the pending bill. Leave HMDA alone. If the authors of 
this bill really wanted to fix this problem, they would support her 
amendment and insist that without that amendment, they would withdraw 
their support for the bill. But now the bill's supporters have a fig 
leaf. They say that of the 85 percent of banks that no longer will have 
to report information about discrimination, if one of those banks 
flunks two consecutive examinations under the Community Reinvestment 
Act, those banks will have to start reporting discrimination data. If 
that looks like a tiny little fig leaf, consider this: Banks get tested 
at most every 3 years, which means it would take 6 years of 
discrimination to flunk twice. This fig leaf is so small, it is 
basically invisible.
  Now, for some of these so-called consumer protection fig leaves--the 
problems are real; it is just the solutions that are fake. For example, 
there is a provision to deal with private student loans from banks. It 
says that if a student loan borrower dies, then the bank can't go after 
the cosigner of the loan for the full balance. That sounds really 
good--at least until you read the fine print. It turns out that spouses 
don't count. So the bank will still be free to hound widows and 
widowers for the balances of their deceased spouses. And the loan isn't 
actually forgiven. That means the bank can still go after the dead 
borrower's estate for the loan, maybe take half of the house or take 
whatever is in the checking account or savings account. It is a 
nightmare for a grieving family--and it is also perfectly OK under this 
fig leaf amendment.
  In some places, it isn't even a fig leaf that pretends to address 
problems with the bill; it is just new provisions to create new 
problems--like a section that blows a hole in regulators' ability to 
require banks to hold capital for commercial real estate. Does anyone 
remember that risky commercial real estate investments were a factor in 
Bear Stearns' failure 10 years ago this week? Does anyone remember that 
6 months later, commercial real estate losses would help blow up Lehman 
Brothers? I guess not--at least not right here in Congress, because 10 
years later--right now, this week--Congress wants to let banks take one 
more commercial real estate fix with less oversight.
  Banks of all sizes are making record profits. Only in Washington 
would people think it is time to scrap the protections that have kept 
us safe for a decade, all so that these same profitable banks can make 
even more money. It is the same mindset that set the stage for the 
savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s and the financial crisis of 
2008.
  America's working families will pay the price if we make the same 
mistakes again. It isn't too late. We should stop this bill from 
becoming law.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, so many are still grieving from the 
atrocious killing of 17 people at the high school in Florida. Indeed, 
our entire State is grieving. Broward County is grieving. Parkland is 
grieving. I think we are going to find on March 24, in the rallies and 
the marches that will occur in 500 cities around this country and will 
have a focus of the main one in Washington, that a lot of people are 
grieving, because a lot of people all across this country have been 
touched by these massacres that continue to occur, starting almost 
three decades ago at Columbine in Colorado. We have certainly had our 
fill of it in Florida just in the last 2 years: 49 people gunned down 
with an assault rifle, a Sig Sauer MCX, at the Pulse nightclub; another 
assault pistol used to gun down 5 people in the Fort Lauderdale 
Airport; and now an AR-15 used to gun down 17. He would have gotten a 
lot more had he been able to open the third-story window overlooking 
the courtyard from a perch as the students fled across the courtyard to 
get out of the schoolyard. He couldn't get the window open. He tried to 
shoot it open, but it was hurricane-proof glass, and it only shattered; 
it didn't break.
  It has been almost 1 month since the tragic shooting. Those 17 
families--14 students and 3 adults--are certainly grieving, and we have 
seen in the last few weeks many of the parents, students, families, and 
community leaders stand up to say that enough is enough. They are 
asking us, the U.S. Congress, to enact meaningful legislation to reduce 
gun violence.
  The action starts in Tallahassee, and the students are going there 
while the State legislature is still in session, talking about 
commonsense solutions, such as enacting universal background checks in 
the purchase of a gun; not allowing a gun show loophole or a private 
transaction loophole; not allowing a loophole for orders on the 
internet; universal background checks that would include mental 
problems; if you have been on the terrorist watch list, that would 
include, of course, criminal records but also mentally adjudicated 
records; universal background checks in the acquisition of a gun, 
particularly an assault rifle. But we can't get that passed here 
because some folks aren't listening.
  Take, for example, what was said at the White House just last night. 
Giving in to the will of the NRA, the White House announced that it 
would provide Federal funding for firearms training for teachers and 
other school personnel. This Senator thinks that arming teachers is a 
terrible idea. It is not what the students are asking for. It is not 
what the teachers are asking for. It is not what the American people 
want us to do.
  Just last week, the Florida legislature passed and the Governor 
signed into law a bill--a watered-down version, but it is still arming 
school personnel, and it falls short on what is really needed to reduce 
gun violence and especially the massacres that are occurring. While 
what Florida has done is a step in the right direction, particularly 
with regard to mandating 3-day waiting periods in the purchase of an 
assault rifle, we are far from where we need to be in addressing gun 
violence if

[[Page S1623]]

we are talking about putting more guns in our schools, and if--as the 
President suggested last night--we arm teachers. The teachers don't 
want it, and I can tell you who else doesn't want it. The SWAT teams 
that have to storm the building looking for the shooter don't want to 
encounter a teacher with a gun and mistakenly think that teacher is the 
shooter. It is common sense.
  What studies do supporters of this idea cite, suggesting that arming 
teachers will reduce gun violence at schools? Why even propose this 
solution before seeing what policies are proposed by a new Federal 
commission on school safety, which has now been developed? Why don't we 
at least see what they are proposing? No, this is to sell more guns by 
arming teachers.
  I have spoken to many teachers, students, and families. I haven't 
found one person who wants teachers to be armed, including the teachers 
themselves. There is near universal agreement that arming teachers is a 
terrible idea. Yet such an idea continues to direct Congress's 
attention away from obvious and commonsense solutions supported by most 
Americans, which are universal background checks and getting the 
assault rifles and banana clips that have 30 rounds off the streets.
  I have supported several bipartisan bills--some with my colleague 
from Florida, Senator Rubio--that address background check issues and 
seek to make sure our schools have the resources to keep our students 
safe.
  Senator Rubio and I announced last week that if there are red flags, 
they need to be brought to the attention of law enforcement. We are 
offering in our bill a Federal incentive program to the States to get 
those red flags about a problem person to the authorities before it is 
too late. But ideas like arming teachers and putting more guns in our 
schools are just plain dangerous.
  Mr. President, I know you have backed off of certain things because 
the NRA wanted you to, and I know you are now proposing arming 
teachers. Let's get down to some real commonsense solutions. Let's work 
on how to prevent assault weapons from getting into the wrong hands and 
to stop the massacres that continue to plague this country. The people 
of America want no less.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
complete my remarks and for the Senator from Arizona to follow me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        National Nutrition Month

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the role of nutrition 
in the health and wellness of our Nation and the development of our 
children. Arkansas' agricultural producers play a vital role in 
providing affordable, nutritious food, not only for our State and 
country but for the entire world.
  March is recognized as National Nutrition Month. This is a time to 
focus attention on the importance of a balanced diet and healthy eating 
choices. As a cochair of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I am committed to 
supporting and raising awareness of efforts that provide nutritious, 
healthy meals; creating policies that fight hunger; and supporting 
programs that have proven successful.
  The Department of Agriculture's Child and Adult Care Food Program is 
a unique effort that uses public-private partnerships to meet the 
nutritional needs of vulnerable children and adults. This has become a 
critical tool in the fight against hunger.
  Senator Klobuchar and I recently introduced a resolution designating 
this week as National Child and Adult Care Food Program Week to honor 
and raise awareness of the important role the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program plays in the health of those in Arkansas, Minnesota, and 
throughout the country. Through this program, more than 4 million 
children and 130,000 adults in childcare centers, adult daycare homes, 
and afterschool programs receive nutritious meals and snacks daily.
  Studies show that access to the Child and Adult Care Food Program can 
measurably and positively impact the cognitive, social, emotional, and 
physical health and development of children, leading to more favorable 
outcomes, such as decreased likelihood of being hospitalized, an 
increased likelihood of healthy weight gain, and an increased 
likelihood of a more varied diet.
  As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I will be working to 
ensure that individuals who need food assistance are able to access 
affordable, nutritious meals. I will also continue to press for 
flexibility in the Department of Agriculture's Summer Food Service 
Program so children who rely on school meals when class is in session 
can access healthy, nutritious meals during the summer in order to have 
a seamless transition from the school year to the summer programs.

  In Arkansas, more than 50,000 children receive nutritious meals 
through this program. For many rural areas of the country, like the 
Natural State, this one-size-fits-all approach fails to meet the needs 
of communities and the children who are most in need.
  More than 60 percent of Arkansas' children rely on free or reduced 
meals during the school year, so we need to modernize the program so 
that summer meal sites are available to children no matter where they 
live. Arkansas is blessed to have the support of schools, churches, 
Boys & Girls Clubs, libraries, and other organizations that serve as 
host sites for summer meal programs, and we need to allow them the 
flexibility that is necessary to reach the students in their 
communities. It is time that Federal policy responds to this need.
  I have seen how community involvement in Arkansas is fighting food 
insecurity. Efforts like the Cooking Matters at the Store Initiative, 
launched by the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, teaches families who 
are on budgets to compare prices, read food labels, and buy fruits and 
vegetables.
  This month is recognized as School Breakfast Month in Arkansas. State 
educators have seen how essential breakfast is to students' progress, 
so they have instituted programs to promote breakfast and are helping 
to grow gardens where the food produced is used in school lunches. 
Grocery stores are allowing SNAP beneficiaries to purchase locally 
grown produce at a discount. Proper nutrition is crucial to our well-
being.
  Creating opportunities to access healthy, nutritious food is also 
important to our State's and the Nation's economic development. In 
order to break the cycle of food insecurity, we must work together. 
Hunger knows no boundaries, but it is preventable, and we have the 
tools to help fight it. We have made significant gains in Arkansas, 
across the country, and throughout the world to improve nutrition for 
the most vulnerable in our society, and I will continue to be a 
champion of efforts to improve access to healthy nutritious, foods.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  (The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 2538 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The 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 Senate amendment 
     No. 2151, as modified, 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, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Ron Johnson, 
           John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Mike Crapo, 
           Deb Fischer, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Rounds, Jeff 
           Flake, John Kennedy, Johnny Isakson, James Lankford, 
           Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.

[[Page S1624]]

  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2151, as modified, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, 
Mr. McConnell, 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.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     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
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--30

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Duckworth
     Heinrich
     McCain
     Paul
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are 
30.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, when you went to a local bank in Mansfield, 
OH, to buy a house 30, 40, or 50 years ago, you knew the lender, and 
the lender knew you. You saw him or her at the grocery store. Maybe 
they went to your church or synagogue. Your kids probably went to the 
same school. You knew that your deposits at the bank helped fund your 
neighbor's house or the hardware store down the street. A lot of banks 
and credit unions don't work this way.
  The 2008 crisis taught us that finance has changed. Now a mortgage in 
Zanesville, OH, is diced and sliced and sold to an investor in Zurich, 
Switzerland. Banks in Frankfurt place bets on loans in Fostoria.
  When the system went bust a decade ago and predatory loans began to 
fail, Ohio taxpayers picked up the tab, including for foreign banks 
headquartered an ocean away. The Federal Reserve opened up a spigot of 
cheap money to keep the global economy from tanking. Banks in Spain, 
France, Japan, Canada, and Korea all came to the United States for help 
to weather the financial storm.
  Think about this. An analysis of the Fed's lending from February 2008 
to 2009 showed that the vast majority of loans went to foreign banks. 
After the crisis, records released to the public showed that foreign 
banks took more than 70 percent of the Fed's loans during the crisis 
and 65 percent of loans from other emergency programs.
  Under one bailout scheme, British Barclays alone borrowed $232 
billion from the Fed at a sweetheart interest rate--the kind of rate a 
hardware store in Hillsboro, OH, could never get on a loan to keep them 
afloat back in 2008. Think about that. British Barclays got a 
sweetheart deal, a better deal than a hardware store in Ohio could get 
from a bank.
  After the crisis, Congress responded with a law, the Wall Street 
reform act, to ensure that taxpayers would never again have to send 
bailout money to British and Swiss megabanks. We ordered the Fed to 
keep a closer eye on the big banks--to use their power to make sure the 
largest global banks did not again crash the economy.
  Congress instructed that the Fed apply the strictest protections to 
the biggest banks--those with more than $50 billion in assets. We know 
that.
  When the Fed implemented these rules, they applied some standards to 
banks that have more than $50 billion across the globe, but for global 
banks that have more than $50 billion in the United States, the Fed 
applied the strongest standards. For foreign banks with not only 
trillions worldwide but systemic operations in the United States, the 
Fed wrote rules that are as strict as those for our domestic megabanks, 
standards that former Fed Governor Dan Tarullo called ``special 
prudential measures.'' They are standards that ensure that we only 
import Swiss chocolate, not Swiss bank failures. These special measures 
are important.
  Last year, the Office of Financial Research released a report showing 
that foreign banks in the United States are riskier than similarly 
sized U.S. regional banks. Hear that again. Foreign banks in the United 
States are riskier than similarly sized U.S. regional banks. Think of 
that in terms of what this bill that we just voted cloture on actually 
does.
  This legislation threatens to undo important rules protecting us from 
risk. The legislation puts taxpayers on the hook for bailouts. That is 
what the Congressional Budget Office said.
  Under this bill, foreign banks that took billions in bailouts would 
be able to take more risk under a less watchful eye. Who are some of 
them? Deutsche Bank, Santander, and UBS would all be treated more like 
they were an Ohio regional bank. Deutsche Bank, the Trump family's 
personal business bank; Santander, the bank in Spain that repossessed 
the cars of hundreds of service men and women cars while those service 
men and women were serving our country overseas; UBS, the Swiss bank 
that illegally financed Iranian activities--they would all be treated 
more like they were Huntington in Columbus, or Fifth Third in 
Cincinnati, or KeyBank in Cleveland. What is right about that? What is 
fair about that? What is smart about that?
  Don't take my word for it. Secretary Mnuchin sat right in front of 
the Banking Committee; Senator Crapo, the chairman, and I, as the 
ranking member, looked straight at him just a few weeks ago. He 
confirmed that this bill would treat foreign banks with up to $250 
billion in assets the same as U.S. regional banks. So they are up to 
$250 billion, just like Huntington, just like KeyCorp, just like Fifth 
Third in Ohio. Secretary Mnuchin said: We are going to treat those 
foreign banks the same if they are up to $250 billion in assets. That 
may be the first direct answer I have ever heard from Secretary 
Mnuchin. I sit on the Finance Committee and the Banking Committee, and 
he has trouble giving direct answers. He did at least that time.
  It makes sense because he was just confirming his intention. From 
what he and the Treasury Department wrote in a report last year, that 
is precisely what this administration wants to do. That is what they 
said in this report that we should do--deregulate these foreign banks 
that have assets under $250 billion in the United States. They wrote it 
into their banking deregulation blueprint back in June.
  I give credit to Secretary Mnuchin, and I give credit to the Trump 
administration. While I don't give them credit for the White House 
looking like a retreat for Wall Street executives, I do give them 
credit for at least finally owning up in that report, in the 
legislation, and in his answer to my question in the Banking Committee 
hearing that, yes, they are going to deregulate these foreign, huge 
megabanks--Deutsche, Santander, UBS, and Barclays--as long as they have 
under $250 billion of assets in the United States, and they do.
  Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Fed, is worried, as I am, that 
this bill deregulates the U.S. operations of foreign banks. Sarah Bloom 
Raskin, former Fed Governor and Deputy Treasury Secretary, said this 
bill ``removes necessary guardrails that were installed to reduce the 
chances of foreign megabanks drawing on U.S. bailout funds.''

[[Page S1625]]

  I have watched the Presiding Officer--the junior Senator from 
Oklahoma--serve with integrity and honesty. I don't think you, any of 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle, or anybody else wants to face 
the voters 5 years from now, 10 years from now if what we voted on 
today and will vote on this week results in our bailing out foreign 
banks. Americans were angry that we bailed out the big U.S. megabanks. 
Imagine the anger if the story is focused more precisely on the fact 
that we bailed out foreign banks--which we actually did--but the story 
was more about Wall Street. Imagine if that were the story.
  Former Treasury officials Michael Barr and Antonio Weiss are worried 
that this bill is rolling back rules that protect the U.S. economy from 
foreign bank risk. The former CFTC Chairman, Gary Gensler, thinks we 
need to amend this bill to make sure that foreign banks don't get a 
windfall. These are across-the-board regulators, present, past, 
Republicans, Democrats. That is quite a list of watchdogs, but what is 
most interesting: Do you know who else is under the impression this 
bill helps foreign banks? Foreign bank lobbyists.

  I offered an amendment during the committee markup to close the 
loophole. I am offering it again on the Senate floor if Republican 
leadership allows amendments on the Senate floor. My amendment would 
have ensured that foreign megabanks in the United States are watched 
over just as closely as Wall Street banks. They are roughly the same 
size; some are bigger, but because their assets are smaller in the 
United States, we are going to treat them like Huntington and Key and 
Fifth Third rather than treating them like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of 
America and Wells Fargo.
  Foreign bank lobbyists--they are American citizens. They are 
lobbyists for foreign banks; they are not foreign lobbyists, a 
difference. These lobbyists for foreign banks, representing Deutsche 
and UBS--most of them--wrote a letter opposing my amendment, saying it 
was unfair for me to try to keep these rules in place. They said their 
banks should be treated like U.S. regional banks, not like the global 
giants they are. That amendment was defeated in the committee; we will 
leave it at that.
  Now, why is that such a problem? Let's look at the rap sheet on some 
of these foreign banks. Santander, a Spanish bank, failed a stress test 
3 years in a row. It would have its rules rolled back under this bill. 
Stress tests are exercises, as my colleagues know, to ensure that a 
bank can survive an economic downturn without a bailout. So this 
Spanish bank, Santander, failed not once, not twice but three times. 
What that failure means--most people, if they fail three times, they 
flunk out. If they fail three times, they get in this bill, and they 
get a potential bailout. What is smart about that? What is honorable 
about that? What is good economic policy about that? What is fair about 
that? What is just about that?
  In addition to failing its stress test, it is a bank that illegally 
repossessed cars from 1,100 American service men and women while they 
were serving our country. I spend a lot of time at the Wright Patterson 
Air Force Base, the largest employer in Ohio. I see all kinds of 
financial institutions that prey on those young airmen and their 
families. Airmen and women, young Americans serving in the Air Force--
particularly when they are 18, 19, 20, 21 years old--are more 
financially vulnerable. They are a little less sophisticated than 
somebody 10 years older. They don't make much money. Their families are 
always anxious when their husband or wife or mother or father serve 
overseas. This Spanish bank repossessed the cars of 1,100 American 
service men and women while they were serving our country. We are going 
to give them a break?
  This is a bank that overcharged racial and ethnic minorities for car 
loans. It is a bank that violated a Federal order to keep more capital 
and instead improperly paid out money to its shareholders, and we are 
going to give them a break? I don't pretend to understand the thinking 
of that.
  This bill helps Deutsche Bank, which the IMF called ``the most 
important net contributor to systemic risks'' of all worldwide banks. 
Deutsche Bank, a German bank, one of the biggest banks in the world, 
the International Monetary Fund called it ``the most important net 
contributor to systemic risks'' of all worldwide banks.
  Deutsche Bank is the only bank that would lend to the Trump family 
economic empire. Even after all of its failed business deals, they kept 
lending, for whatever reason, to businessman Trump and the family. This 
is a bank that every week is met with a new request for information on 
shady financial arrangements with people in the White House.
  I don't think my colleagues and I were sent here to serve Deutsche 
Bank. I am thinking none of us goes back in our campaigns--I am on the 
ballot this year. I am not going to go back and say: Please reelect me 
so I can help Deutsche Bank, so I can bail them out, so I can pass a 
bill that will actually give them something they don't deserve.
  This bill would also help banks like Barclays and UBS and BNP 
Paribas--banks that have rigged interest rates, helped people avoid 
paying taxes, violated U.S. sanctions against Iran and Sudan, and 
manipulated energy markets. These aren't banks down the street lending 
to homeowners in Sandusky or businesses in Findlay or small companies 
in my hometown of Mansfield; these are some of the most complex global 
banks. They hold $1.4 trillion in assets. That is $1,400 billion--$1.4 
trillion--in assets in the United States and more than $14 trillion in 
assets abroad.
  Listen to Paul Volker, listen to Sarah Bloom Raskin, listen to Gary 
Gensler, listen to Michael Barr and Antonio Weiss. Believe Secretary 
Mnuchin when he tells you what he wants to do. Believe the lobbyists 
for these foreign banks when they say that is what they want. That is 
why they oppose this amendment. This bill gives them exactly what they 
want.

  Let me talk about one change made to the substitute amendment. 
Because I have come to this floor and some others have joined me in 
objecting to this foreign bank provision, the leadership--Senator 
McConnell and his office, I assume, down the way--I assume they huddled 
and thought: We have to answer this somehow; we have to at least look 
like we care about prohibiting a bailout of foreign banks. So they made 
a change in the substitute. The new version of the bill came out last 
week. There is a new provision that provides some window dressing. It 
is a figleaf protection to try to convince the public that this bill 
doesn't do what it actually does. It doesn't actually help Santander; 
it doesn't actually help UBS; it doesn't actually help Barclays; it 
doesn't actually help the President's bank, Deutsche Bank--but it 
actually does. The provision provides some vague, ambiguous language 
and puts the question to the Fed: You can regulate the foreign banks or 
not; it is your choice. It doesn't require the Fed to deregulate. It 
doesn't stop the foreign banks from suing if the Fed doesn't obey their 
requests.
  Why not just prohibit? Why not just say: No, we are not going to do 
it. But they don't want to do that. They want to keep that door open 
because they know the regulators on FSOC, whether it is the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve Jay Clayton, whether it is Mr. Otting of the SEC, 
whether it is Secretary Mnuchin, or whomever they put at any of these, 
we know what they are going to do. They have already said what they are 
growing to do.
  Even a writer at the Wall Street Journal agrees, saying it will be up 
to the Fed to decide whether Deutsche Bank ``deserves a tighter 
leash.''
  So we are expected--we, in a pretty much party-line vote, because 
most Democrats think you don't want Wall Street people in these 
positions regulating the banks, in a party-line vote, Randal Quarles 
was confirmed. His job is to be the Director of Supervision at the 
Federal Reserve. So we are expected to trust Randal Quarles not to 
weaken the rules in the foreign banks--to trust Quarles, even though he 
himself missed the last crisis. He predicted as late as, I believe, 
2007, as a member of the Bush administration, that the economy was 
great, the banks weren't under duress, any of that. It might have been 
2006, but I think 2007. He missed the last crisis and, I might add, he 
personally profited from Wall Street malfeasance. I am not saying he 
did it on purpose, but he personally profited because of Wall Street 
malfeasance.

[[Page S1626]]

  We are supposed to trust Quarles, even though just last week he spoke 
at an international bankers conference, where a lot of those foreign 
bank representatives and lobbyists were in attendance, including CEOs 
and other executives, and he promised those bankers regulatory relief.
  So we have the head of supervision at the Federal Reserve Bank of the 
United States--one of the most powerful people in this country--
speaking to an international bankers group saying: Yes, we are going to 
give you regulatory relief. Aren't you lucky you came to this 
conference because I am in charge of these issues at the Federal 
Reserve, and I am going to help you get regulatory relief as a foreign 
bank. Congratulations.
  Finally, this last point is technical, but it is important. The bills 
make sure that a globally systemic U.S. bank will not benefit from any 
deregulation, even if it has fewer than $250 billion in assets, but the 
bill doesn't even do the same for foreign banks.
  Let me repeat. State Street has fewer than $250 billion in assets. 
State Street is called a custodial bank, located in Boston, as the 
Presiding Officer knows. It has fewer than $250 billion in assets. The 
bill says, because that bank is systemically significant, it doesn't 
get a free pass. This legislation says that about State Street, but it 
doesn't say the same for similarly--or, I would argue, way more--risky 
foreign banks in the United States.
  My amendment would close that loophole. It treats systemically risky 
foreign banks like systemically risky U.S. banks. Why? Because why 
treat Barclays and Santander and UBS and Deutsche Bank better than we 
treat Huntington or Fifth Third or Key or Regents in Alabama or any of 
these regional banks--many of which we want to help. If we want to help 
community banks and credit unions and our regional banks to do the 
right thing, let's help them. Foreign megabanks shouldn't get another 
chance of a handout from American taxpayers--never.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________