[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2985-S2986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Big Banks and the Second Amendment

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today because, in my judgement, we 
are in the midst of a deeply troubling trend regarding banking and the 
Second Amendment. I know that seems a bit strange. What does banking 
have to do with the Second Amendment? I have wondered that myself. 
Allow me to explain.
  We have 120 million gun owners in America. Like those Americans, I am 
alarmed by the activist anti-gun policies unveiled by the ``we are 
smarter than you'' financial elites who run two Wall Street banks: 
Citigroup and Bank of America. They have a political agenda, and those 
banks' political agenda stands to hurt many small businesses in my 
State of Louisiana that are going to lose their banking services simply 
because these small businesses choose to exercise their 
constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.
  On March 22 of this year, Citigroup issued a press release. That 
press release detailed how Citigroup will penalize banking clients who 
follow Federal, State, and local gun laws. Citigroup's new policy will 
tell businesses what kinds of firearms they can stock, what kinds of 
accessories those small businesses can stock in their stores, and who 
they can sell them to. I thought this was America.
  This new policy has already taken effect all across Citigroup, and it 
has impacted hundreds of small businesses, institutional clients, and 
even their credit card partners.
  Not to be outdone, 2 weeks later, Bank of America joined in. On April 
10, Bank of America announced that it will no longer loan money to 
businesses that, in its opinion, are ``deplorables'' because those 
businesses manufacture legal semiautomatic rifles. Targeting firearms 
owners and business owners is not only an affront to responsible, law-
abiding, constitutional gun owners across this country; it is a threat 
to the sanctity of our very Constitution and the Second Amendment
  I realize that the management of these two banks have a constitution 
whose bill of rights jumps from one to three, but I can assure them 
that in the Constitution read by the rest of America, there is a Second 
Amendment.
  I have written to both the chief executive officers of Citigroup and 
Bank of America about my concerns, and they have yet to respond. I 
understand that Mr. Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, is 
actually here in Washington lobbying folks on Capitol Hill this week. I 
suppose he was too busy to come by and address my concerns. Once again, 
I invite him to come by my office and speak about this in person.
  I can't overstate the gravity of this issue. It is important for 
consumers and businesses all across America. Both Citigroup and Bank of 
America are considered by the U.S. Government to be ``systemically 
important banks.''

[[Page S2986]]

That means they are too big to fail. That is why the American taxpayers 
had to bail them out in 2009.
  The American taxpayers, many of whom Citigroup and Bank of America 
now condescend to across our great land, gave Citigroup $476 billion of 
their hard-earned money--not $476 million to bail out Citigroup, $476 
billion. And the American taxpayers, many of whom choose to exercise 
their rights under the Second Amendment and whom these banks are trying 
to now punish, gave Bank of America $336 billion in 2008 and 2009 to 
keep them from going broke.
  These banks are supposed to act as a source of credit for households 
and businesses and local and State governments and as a source of 
liquidity for the entire banking system, but that also means their 
corporate policies will have ripple effects through every corner of our 
economy, from consumers and businesses of all sizes to banks and 
nonbank holding companies.
  If the banking system worked like a grocery store, I would still 
disagree with these new anti-gun rules by Citigroup and Bank of 
America, but I would respect their rights to enact whatever corporate 
policies align with their beliefs. But banks are not grocery stores. A 
grocery store doesn't need a government charter to operate. A grocery 
store doesn't have a government corporation backed by the taxpayers of 
this country to insure their deposits. A grocery store doesn't have a 
government bank that pays them interest. Banks do.
  One grocery store doesn't get so big that it lends and borrows and 
buys and sells from nearly every other grocery store in the country. 
Citigroup does, and so does Bank of America.
  A grocery store doesn't need an $812.3 billion bailout from the 
American taxpayers, many of whom choose to exercise their rights under 
the U.S. Constitution, including, but not limited to, the Second 
Amendment.
  Citigroup and Bank of America have decided to make banking a red-
versus-blue issue by trampling on the Second Amendment rights of small 
business owners and therefore all Americans.
  If additional big consumer banks come out with similar anti-Second 
Amendment policies, it will get harder and harder for businesses in my 
State of Louisiana and small businesses in other States and elsewhere 
to find banking services. We will have red banks, and we will have blue 
banks. I don't think that is what we want in America.
  I want to make sure that the Federal Government isn't rewarding this 
behavior with even more taxpayer dollars. I think $1 trillion to bail 
out these two banks by the American taxpayers is quite enough.
  I have already petitioned the General Services Administration to 
cancel the Federal Government's $700 billion contract with Citigroup, 
and I have urged officials in the State of Louisiana to reevaluate all 
State contracts with any Wall Street bank that chooses to implement an 
extra-legal policy that infringes on the Second Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Citigroup and Bank of America owe their continued existence to the 
generosity of the American taxpayer. If it weren't for the American 
taxpayer, there would be no Citigroup; there would be no Bank of 
America. I find it very disturbing that these Wall Street banks may be 
profiting from taxpayer-funded contracts at the same time they are 
pushing a political agenda--and that is what it is, a political 
agenda--and severing ties with law-abiding businesses in the process. 
Given the size of these banks, it is likely that the same is true in 
States across America.
  I find it offensive--I find it offensive--that Wall Street banks are 
taking taxpayer dollars with one hand and condescending to them with 
their ``we know better than you do'' attitude by using the other hand 
to come after the guns those taxpayers lawfully own under the Second 
Amendment. Rather than impose its political agenda on law-abiding 
citizens, these Wall Street banks ought to remember how taxpayers spent 
billions of dollars--almost $1 trillion--to bail them out after the 
2008 financial crisis. They owe a tremendous debt to the American 
people, and it seems they have a very short memory.
  We don't need red banks in America. We don't need blue banks in 
America. We need safe banks in America.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.