quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a modification to amendment number 23151 to the desk. the presiding officer: the amendment is so modified. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion for amendment 2151 as modified. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment number 2151 as modified to calendar number 287 as 2155, a bill to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief and enhanced consumer protections and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as followed. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 287, s. 2155, a bill to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief and enhanced consumer protections and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as followed. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 598, kevin k. mcleenan . the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security, kevin k. mcleenan of hawaii to be commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we,

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of kevin k. mcleenan of hawaii to be commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection, department of homeland security, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i stphebt reading of the -- i ask consent reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, i'd like to give an update about where we are on s. 2155. we continue to be open and ready for amendments on our side. we have a number that we are ready to move forward with, and we yet so far have not received agreement from the other side to move forward. we hope that we can avoid this slowdown and start moving

forward by setting votes on amendments as soon as we can. and we will continue to work to try to achieve that. it's my hope that we'll be able to get heavily engaged in and resolve the amendment stage of this legislation soon so that we can continue to move forward expeditiously. thank you. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. warren: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, ten years ago millions of american families were on the verge of devastation. the failure of bear stearns in march of 2008 was the first major signal of a coming financial crisis that would cost nine million people their jobs and millions more people their homes or their savings. lives and plans and dreams would be crushed, and even after the economy began to recover its footing, millions of american families would have to spend years just to get back to where they started before 2008. a lot of those families have

given up the dream of homeownership forever, and many are still struggling today. but in the next few days, with broad support among republicans and far too much support among democrats, the senate is on the verge of passing a bill that puts american families in danger of that same devastation all over again. over the last few days i've talked about what this bill will do. i've explained how it strips consumer protections for american families who are trying to buy a home, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color. i've talked about how this bill will peel away vital safeguards we put on large banks after the financial crisis to make sure that they can't crash the economy all over again. and now, as the bill is on the verge of passing the senate, i want to stop and just ask a basic question: why? who exactly is asking us to do

this? our constituents hate it. a recent poll shows that an overwhelming majority of americans oppose this bill. so why is it that the only thing washington can agree to do on a bipartisan basis in this congress is to help out giant banks? and i'll tell you why. washington's amnesia is legendary. we go through the same cycle like clockwork. when the economy is looking good, lobbyists flood congress and tell politicians, it is perfectly safe to roll back the rules on the big banks. it's always the same set of arguments. america needs more lending for more economic growth. our country is losing ground to its competitors. banks have learned their lesson and don't need rules to behave responsibly. and the kicker question: what could possibly go wrong? and every time it works. it works even though the lessons

of history are clear. strong financial rules help create a strong economy that works for everyone. and when we weaken the rules, it sets the stage for another financial crisis, a crisis that every time hits america's working families the hardest. let's go back to the beginning of the 20th century. a lot of our financial regulations in the united states come from the great depression. before then, washington ignored the booms and busts that rocked the country every few years. but after the unemployment rate topped 20% in the 1930's and the u.s. economy shrunk by about 30%, washington, this congress, finally got its act together to pass some laws. and here's what they did. first they looked at all the places where people put their money: banks, homes, markets. and then they built regulators for all these different kinds of

investments. and congress did something really smart. it put a law in place called the glass-steagall act. it broke up the biggest banks and it separated the banks that take deposits and make mortgages from high-risk institutions like investment banks. this worked reasonably well for about half a century. there wasn't a single major financial crisis. but then starting in the late 1970's and early 1980's, bankers, looking for higher profits and bigger paychecks, set their sights on government rules. they wanted less regulation and more freedom to trick their customers to trap their customers, and to cheat their customers. it started in the savings and loan industry. these institutions which specialized in home mortgages started to become insolvent because of the rising inflation and flaws in their business

model. so the bank lobbyists had a solution. deregulate them. they said instead of just safe mortgages, why don't we let these institutions put out some riskier stuff in hopes that some of these gambles will pay off big. the reagan administration agreed, but the plan failed. over the next decade, taxpayers spent $132 billion to bail out these institutions. that was the 1980's. but why stop there? deregulating the thrifts, as disastrous as it was, was just small ball. thrifts were only allowed to gamble with a chunk of their own money. the lobbyists wanted to tear down all of the barriers, throwing savings accounts and risky, complicated securities into one big institution and then letting that bank gamble with all of it. they dreamt of a wall street

where banks could take the money and grandma's checking account and use it to gamble in the markets. they wanted to tear down the glass-steagall wall that had separated boring banking and high-risk trading. in 1999, the conditions were perfect to rip up the rules. why? the economy was cruising. unemployment was down at 4.2%. the markets were on fire. the dow, the s&p 500 and the nasdaq smashed every record in their paths. in fact, the nasdaq grew at 85.6% in 1999, the biggest annual jump for a major index in u.s. history. one respected finance professor gushed, it's amazing. every year we say it can't be -- there can't be another year of 20%-plus a gain.

and every year it's a 20%-plus gain. it was a prime time for the bank lobbyists to strike. they swarmed capitol hill pushing, pulling, cajoling, running from the house to the senate and back again, and most of this was happening behind closed doors. but on a clear, cold day in february 1999, eight bankers and two lobbyists testified in front of the banking committee and the knives were out for glass-steagall. the euphemism that people used them was modernization. when lobbyists start talking about modernization and clarification, it's time to buy a parachute. let me tell you about keycorp, one of the items taken off the list. back in 1999, the c.e.o. of that company testified that, quote,

the financial law modernization that strengthens our financial institutions in and of itself will enhance safety and soundness. think about what that means. behind the buzzwords, that c.e.o. was making the amazing claim that if banks were just allowed to take more risks and to make more short-term profits, it would actually make the financial system safer. in other words, if you just deregulate the banks, they will become safer. and he wasn't the only one to make a claim like that. the vice chairman of j.p. morgan said, there is a concern that these rules restrict competition, reduce consumer choice and are not necessary to protect consumers or insured financial institutions.

in other words, rules are the problem. if banks could just do whatever they p wanted, everything would be great. guess what. the pitch worked. nine months later in late 1999, a bill to repeal key parts of glass-steagall and roll back other financial rules, passed both houses of congress overwhelmingly. 90 senators voted yes. senator after senator, including quite a few who are still here today, came to the senate floor and praised the bill for modernizing our financial rules and getting rid of unnecessary and outdated requirements. but not everyone was fooled. some senators knew better. senator paul wellstone from minnesota warned that congress seems to determine to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes and is about to repeal

glass-steagall without putting any comparable safeguard in its place. senator byron dorgan of north dakota was especially, he said, quote, i think we will look back in ten year's time sand and say we -- and say we should not have done this. and that which is true in the 1930's true in 2010. we have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past of safety and of soundness. but congress ignored their warnings. for the bargain price of $300 million in lobbyist bills, the big banks saw their wildest dreams come true. with the repeal of glass-steagall, too big to fail megabanks were born. citibank became citigroup, j.p.

morgan became j.p. morgan chase. the banks got bigger and bigger and bigger, but the lobbyists, they weren't done yet. over the next decade they tried over and over to expand the loopholes they had punched until the regulators and regulations gave way. by the middle of the decade, the conditions were right, markets broke records, the unemployment rate was below 5%. it was time for the lobbyists to go after it again. hand-tailored suits swarmed capitol hill. meetings were scheduled, and so were fundraisers. their efforts occasionally spilled out in the public hearing rooms and the pitch might sound familiar. in 2006, the head of risk at citigroup told the house financial services committee, quote, the u.s. needs to

modernize its capital regulations and there are a variety of new approaches that all represent a significant improvement over the current system. in other words, the regulations are outdated. steve bartlett, a former congressman, who was a lobbyist for the 50 biggest banks told the senate banking committee in 2005, quote, outdated laws and regulations put unnecessary burdens on financial firms, and these regulations not only make our firms less efficient, but increase the costs of financial services to consumers. in other words, set the banks free and let them do whatever they want. what could possibly go wrong? in 2005, the head of the american bankers association told the committee, quote, the cost of unnecessary paperwork and red tape is a serious,

long-term problem that will continue to erode the ability of banks to serve our customers and support the economic growth of our communities. in other words, in the end, these rules hurt consumers. let the banks do whatever they want to consumers. and then, just as the lobbyists were gaining momentum, the economy they created crashed. it was 2008 and millions of families lost their homes, millions lost their savings, and millions lost their jobs. but the lobbyists, boy, they didn't lose their jobs. nope. the pedaled myths about the economy and the financial time, and they kept right on working for the big banks. all during the efforts to pass financial regulations to get our economy out of the ditch, the bank lobbyists were there. they pulled in more than $1 million a day lobbying

against financial reform. and when the american people stirred to demand action in the wake of the 2008 crash, the reforms passed anyway. but the lobbyists, they didn't give up. they didn't go away. before the ink was dry on dodd-frank, they jumped right back in and started lobbying to roll back the new rules. so here we are again. it took years, but the economy is humming again. in 2016, the unemployment rate dipped below 5% since the first time since before the 2008 crisis. in 2017, the dow jumped 25%, the nasdaq grew by 28%, and you know what that means. it means the bank lobbyists have once again taken center stage, insisting that, sure, it's safe

to deregulate their clients again all in the name of economic growth and empowering consumers, of course. it's the same argument as before. last spring, bank lobbyist frank bear said, after a decade of fundamental changes tomorrow financial regulations, now is an objector tune -- opportune time to look at the efficacy of our bank work. my reform will enhance economic growth. in other words, turn the big banks loose and let's see what they can do. harris simmons, the c.e.o. of zion's bank which will be kicked off the watch list under the rule that is now under consideration, recently testified, quote, the uncertainty surrounding dodd-frank can cause banks to withdraw or limit certain kinds

of lending or to put it another way, get out of the way and let the big banks cheat their customers again. it's good for bank profits. here we go again. sure, i get it. our financial regulations need work. there are things we could do to reduce the load on community banks, and there are still big dangers to consumers that we should take up, but this bill isn't about the unfinished business of the last financial crisis. this bill is about laying the groundwork for the next financial crisis. so i will make a prediction. this bill will pass. and if the banks get their way in the next ten years or so, there will be another financial crisis. of course when the crash comes, the big banks will throw up their hands and say, it's not their fault. nobody could have seen it coming. and then, they'll run to congress and beg for bailout money.

and let's be blunt, they'll probably get it. but like in 2008, there will be no bailout for working families. jobs will be lost, lives will be destroyed. the american people, not the banks, will once again bear the burden. and then, caught in a fog of amnesia, the lobbyists and regulators an elected officials in washington will scratch their heads and wonder how in the world it could have possibly happened again. but the american people -- the american people people won't be confused about it at all. they never are. they are much smarter than the people around here give them credit for. they won't wonder why it happened. they will know why it happened. they will know because it was the people in washington who ignored working people in order to do the bidding of the guys in the fancy suits and the

hand-made shoes who write the fat campaign checks. look at the numbers, 78% of americans think big banks have too much control over members of congress. that includes 68% of people who voted for donald trump. everyone knows that congress sold them out last time and everyone expects it to happen again this time. so as we prepare to vote on this bill, i ask my colleagues one more time, do the job you were sent here to do. stand up for the people who sent us here. stop doing the bidding of big bank lobbyists and start working on the things that can make a difference in the lives of working people around this country. the american people need it, the american people deserve it, the american people demand it. and if you refuse to do it, don't be surprised when they hold you responsible.

mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today in this historic chamber to offer my thanks, my respect, to pay homage to an incredibly valued member of my staff, who is about to retire from the united states senate after decades of dedicated service. a new englander by birth and a delawarean by choice, marianne kelly, has served as my deputy of scheduling now for seven years and is due to retire tomorrow, march 9. marianne kelly, or m.a.k., her acronym for her initials, as she is affectionately called in my office, m.a.k. started a career with the united states senate way back in september of 1990 as a staff assistant for then-senator joseph biden, jr. except for a break in service, mayor anne served on senator biden's team until he resigned to become vice president. she joined my scheduling team late in 2010.

having served now three u.s. senators, marianne brings a breadth of knowledge and experience to my front office and scheduling team, she helps maintain my schedule, helps organize, evaluate, track hundreds of invitations and scheduling requests to co-workers and constituents. mayor anne's professionalism and business acumen are unwavering and valued. she always maintains her composure, despite the stress and sometimes craziness this unique position offers. my team in delaware appreciates her ready wit, balanced judgment, and calming presence. krista brady, my talented casework manager, says, quote, mak adds that something extra irish to the office. every morning she comes in wearing her ?aziest outfit, drinking her cappuccino from starbucks and ready to tell a funny star. christie reminded me about her love for cats, her spirit and wicked new england spirit.

mayor anne's story is rooted deeper than just her senate experience. her authenticity and devotion to friends and family make her a staff favorite and valued member of my team. to properly honor mayor anne, let me share some details about her background and persona. a graduate of cardinal spellman high school in framingham state college, she was born and lived in massachusetts until she moved to delaware in 1979. ask her about her hometown, and she will quickly chime in with brockton, massachusetts, home of rocky marciano and marvin hagler. thanks to rocky and marvin, world heavyweight and middle weeght boxing champions, brockton is recognized as the city of champions. if those two are brockton's boxing champs, mayor anne is the undisputed world champion in cooking, whether it be cooking or toasting. mayor anne has a talent for her own chosen sport, one she has

practiced and refined over many years. marvin hagler explained what it takes to be a winner. what mayor anne did is the same thing. hagler once said every boxer has to be dedicated, to know how to sacrifice, to know what all the devotion is all about. may attention to your art. mayor anne learned to cook, her art, at an early age. she was born with a love of cooking. this is something she pursued through her college years and into today. she earned a bachelor of science in food and nutrition at framingham state in 1967 and subsequently mentored and educated students as a home economics teacher for five years. mayor anne taught classes on food, nutrition, and of course cooking. over the decades, our very own mak perfected a wide range of delicacies to soothe and feed family, friends and fellow delawareans. often the people she fed and cared for were through her

efforts at the ministry of caring in wilmington, delaware. she worked as a decade as the head chef of ministry at caring, a community-based nonprofit that provides a network of social health and support services for those living in poverty or who are homeless. mayor anne used her professional education, her faith, and her experience to feed the souls of people and provide them comfort through food served at ministry's emmanuel dining room. when she returned to the senate after her break in service, she rallied her co-workers to volunteer monthly at the dining room where i, too, have volunteered. we continued this outreach as a great opportunity for my casework team to connect with constituents. for many years, mayor anne owned and operated her own excellent business, creative catering cuisine. to this day, she still receives catering requests and calls from friends for cookies, cakes, and other treats. mayor anne's depth and variety

of dishes are storied. she has fillet mignon, cranberry cake, irish cake banana pudding and a wide variety of pound cakes. my intern coordinator speaks highly of mayor anne's oatmeal cookies and other confections. lynn and the rest of the team are unanimous in their vote for mak's curry chicken. her food is influential and transcendent. i'm confident if mak existed in earlier times, it could have changed the course of history as we know it. if this u.s.s. sustenance was vl in 1775, patrick henry may have exclaimed gave me mayor anne's chicken or give me death. mayor anne goes to great lengths to prepare meals for those she loves. she gets the freshest ingredients. some people remember when she returned from her lunch break with a half dozen lobsters, the main course for dinner prepared in honor of her son's birthday.

my immigration caseworker who has also worked for senators bide inand -- biden and kaufman before me said mayor anne has always been quick to smile, laugh, and listen. she is like a mother to us all. mayor anne may not know just how much she inspires and influences those around her. i have been moved to hear and witness the impression she has made on my staff, on her friends, and her family. terry wright who also previously worked for senator biden, a member of my service academy selection board has known mayor anne for many years. terry said mayor anne is generous with an absolute willingness to help anyone in any way she can. when she is your friend, terry said, you have a friend for life. and elaine a sasserman, a newer member of my casework team, said mayor anne is one of the nicest and most thoughtful people i have ever met, and i have enjoyed working with her here in the senate and in everyday life. mak was one of the first people to include me in the office when i first started. elaine a has developed a love for knitting, crocheting and

other crafts thanks to mayor anne's valued friendship and mentoring. when i am not in d.c., i'm usually in my wilmington office in delaware, and we enjoy the opportunity to have lunch as a group, everybody on my delaware staff. i love those lunches, listening to mayor anne tell funny stories, share observations, even show photos of, brag about her grandkids. my dad who he i miss dearly was born in boston, massachusetts. maryann who never lost her boston a accent provides me with comfort. i love her spirit, her massachusetts spirit, her soul and positive attitude. mary ann is a decent person and great person in our office and a fixture and a breath of fresh air. her work in the senate and her career as a chef shows the importance of working hard, embracing what you love, using your strengths to help your friends and neighbors and to better the country and community. mary ann said she would miss all

aspects of working with us in the senate and has been a big part of her life. i know you will also miss the camaraderie of your coworkers in the delaware office. a long-time chef, i'm confident, mary ann you have a recipe for retirement and will embrace it. it will be filled with activity, cooking, knitting, outings with your friends jil, norma, sue, and tanya and that you will spend more time with your sons michael and terence, daughters in law and beloved grandchildren, cole, mitch, aaron and nolan. all live right nearby just over the line in pennsylvania and whether their nan is joining them for dinner or attending a high school rowing event, i know you will be there in spirit and preparing dessert. i know you will love spending time spending weekends with your grand children.

let me conclude by saying thank you. thank you for your years of service to the senate, to our community and to the people of the first state. you've been a valued and admired mechanic of my team -- member of my team and i'll close with a traditional irish blessing. may there always be work for your hands to do, may your purse hold a coin or two, the sun shine on your window pane and the rainbow be certain to follow each rain and may good fill your heart with gladness to cheer you. i air you a fond farewell and great thanks to you for all you've done for delaware and the senate. thank you. mr. president, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to explain my opposition to

the bill that is before the senate, the banking deregulation bill. s. 2155. and first, i'd like to say that i'm appalled this is how the senate is spending its time this week. three weeks ago, 17 students and teachers were murdered when a teenager armed with an ar-15 decorated with swastikas opened fire at stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida. but this week we're not banning the sale of high capacity magazines that enable mass shooters to fire 30, 40, or even a hundred rounds without stopping to reload. we're not closing the gun show loophole or stopping violent people from buying assault weapons online with the click of a mouse. we're not taking steps to report more cases of severe mental illness to the national instant criminal background check system. we're not even passing president

trump's proposal to raise the age one can buy an assault weapon to 21 years. simply put, this week we're not doing anything to stop the next mass shooting from taking place. so what are we doing this week? well, this week the republican majority has brought to the floor legislation rolling back safeguards we passed after the financial crisis of 2008. not exactly something the american people have been clamoring for. now, i want to be clear why i oppose this bill as written. it's not that i don't support measures that provide meaningful relief to small banks, credit union, and consumers. i do. it's not that i don't believe in reexamining regulations and looking for ways to reduce compliance costs. i do. and it's not that i don't agree with efforts to better calibrate the rules of the road for small banks and credit unions while strengthening protections for consumers, investors and taxpayers. i do. indeed, i would support a bill

like that. but that's not the bill we have before us today. the bill before us today brings back risky mortgage lending practices that increase the likelihood of foreclosures. it -- it undermines our efforts to police discriminatory lending practices. and it would allow 25 of america's 28 biggest banks to escape the safeguards we adopted after the 2008 financial crisis. a crisis that destroyed more than $12 trillion worth of american wealth. required huge bank bailouts. sent our economy into a tailspin and saddled us with the great recession. ten years later, it's worth remembering what caused that crisis. mortgages designed like ticking time bombs for home buyers and for our economy at large, large

financial institutions making risky bets on those risky mortgages, and regulators who turn a blind eye to these risks. borrowers were steered into loans with low interest rates, often below 4% at the start, but once the promotional period ended, these teaser rates disappeared. higher interest rates kicked in, and millions of borrowers suddenly saw their mortgage payments go through the roof, even doubling in many cases. between 2006 and -- i'm sorry. 2004 and 2006, a third, a third of all adjustable rate mortgages were designed this way. and at a time of stagnant wages, millions of families couldn't keep up. that's why a wave of foreclosures overtook our housing market, displacing families, decimating home values, and destabilizing neighborhoods.

from 2006 to 2014, more than 9.3 million families lost their homes to foreclosure, sold their homes at a significant loss, or surrendered their homes to the bank. and for communities of color, the crisis was even worse. african american and latino borrowers were at least twice as likely to receive a higher cost loan than white applicants. even when controlling for income and credit scores. and there were -- they were nearly 50% more likely to face foreclosure during the crisis. so what did we do about it? well, we passed laws to stop lenders from offering mortgages that were in many ways doomed to fail. we said that from now on, banks and mortgage lenders would have to make a reasonable and good-faith determination that borrowers could pay back their loans by looking at income, employment, credit history, monthly expenses, and other

matters. and we prohibited banks from using these teaser rates to determine whether a borrower could repay a loan. we did the sensible thing, and we required them to make sure borrowers could actually afford their payments once the higher interest rates kicked in. we also passed reforms to better catch discriminatory lending practices, because we know that in many cases, the riskiest products were offered to minority communities. we asked banks to provide data that they already collect on things like debt to income ratios, credit scores, loan to ratio values, loan to value ratios, interest rates, and loan terms. this way we could better identify emerging risks and possible discriminatory lending practices in our communities. were all of these reforms perfect? of course not. have they made our mortgage lending system safer, smarter, and fairer for credit borrowers?

absolutely. does that mean we still don't face challenges? no. new jerseyans know that. our state still suffers the highest rate of foreclosure in the nation, and many new jersey neighborhoods still struggle with frequent foreclosures, abandoned homes, and their painful consequences. likewise, discrimination still persists. i was appalled by a report released in january that showed african american and latino families, even controlling for income, loan amount, and location, continue to be disproportionately denied conventional mortgages. these practices are nothing short of modern-day redlining. we see it in camden, new jersey, for example, where black applicants are still more than two and a half times likelier to be denied than white applicants. now ten years after the crisis, congress is poised to turn back the clock. under this bill, some banks will once again be able to offer mortgages with teaser rates of

4% that more than double in just two years without ever verifying if a borrower could afford a 9% interest rate. and all they have to do is keep the loans on their books, and this bill will excuse 85% of banks from sharing the data that we need to identify discrimination and ensure all creditworthy borrowers have a fair shot at the american dream of homeownership. so if this sounds familiar, that's because it is. history is repeating itself. and beyond making mortgage lending riskier and less fair, this bill removes guardrails we put in place for 25 of the 38 largest banks in the country. these are the banks identified as systemically important during the crisis. the banks that received

$47 billion in bailouts. now, i appreciate my colleagues who point out this bill's benefit for community banks and credit unions, and i mean that. that's a good thing. but i fear these provisions mask giveaways that will make big banks bigger and ultimately hurt smaller banks struggling to compete. under title 4, for example, this bill significantly cuts oversight of banks with assets from $50 billion and $250 billion. have we forgotten so quickly the lessons we learned after the crisis? do we not remember how the government had to arrange forced mergers of countrywide with $200 billion in assets and national city with $145 billion in assets because their near failures worked to spread risk from wall street to main street? do we really want to weaken these guardrails? the stress tests and the capital planning requirements to ensure

banks can survive a crisis? the living wills that ensure that they have a feasible way to unwind if things go badly? the minimum liquid assets they must hold in the event they lose access to funding markets. when taxpayer dollars are on the line, i don't think it's unfair to ask big banks to be safe and smart. on the contrary, it's unfair to the american people who will have to bail them out when and if they get into trouble. supporters of the bill are quick to point out that it preserves the federal reserve's authority to take action if they become concerned about a bank with less than $250 billion in assets. well, forgive me for not having confidence in regulators with a long history of doing too little too late. that's exactly the kind of risk that taxpayers, homeowners, and investors can't afford. as the chairman of the financial

crisis inquiry commission recently wrote, and i quote, history has shown time and again that the failure of financial firms that are not among the largest megabanks can pose systemic risk to financial stability. and according to the congressional budget office, these weaker protections make it even more likely that taxpayers will once again have to bail out banks. at the end of this day, this bill injects tremendous risk into the system and undercuts our tools to have our financial cops on the beat actually work to monitor the risk. so that leaves taxpayers on the hook if risk then turns into crisis. rather than protecting families, this bill is packed full of goodies for large banks and special interests because consumers, the families who

would suffer the most in another crisis, they don't have a seat at the table. now, as a member of the banking committee, i worked in good faith to amend this bill and make it better. i offered an amendment called christopher's law to better protect consumers like the briskey family in new jersey, while mourning the tragic loss of their son, christopher, the briskeys were stunned to learn that they would be responsible for paying for an education their son could never use because they had cosigned his private student loan. and i appreciate that my colleagues incorporated major components of christopher's law to protect families that suffer the tragic loss of a loved one into the manager's package for this bill, but when you look at the totality of the bill's provisions, the fact remains that we couldn't get an inch for consumers in exchange for the miles this bill gives to big banks. take, for example, my amendment to enhance protections for military service members who often struggle to protect their

credit while they are serving our country abroad. or the amendment i offered to prevent the rewards of this bill from flowing to banks that adopt punishing wells fargo-style sales cultures that put consumers at risk. these are just some of the pro-consumer common sense amendments that were rejected in the banking committee. ultimately, i still believe that congress could pass legislation that provides targeted relief to community banks and credit unions but not in exchange for erasing the standards that protect working families and our economy from systemic risks. so you can bet i will be working here on the floor to get those amendments included in full. senator cortez masso and i -- masto and i will report the data we need to police against discriminatory lending practices. likewise, i am offering an amendment to require consumer

reporting agencies like equifax quickly disclose data breaches and require a study of how these breaches impact consumers over the long haul. and finally, i am proposing an amendment that requires mutual funds to disclose to their shareholders whether they invest in the gun industry, because it's downright offensive to be considering a banking bill this week instead of pressing corporate america to step up in the fight against gun violence that rips our country apart year after year. these measures, if adopted, would make a bad bill a bit better. but as we quickly approach the ten-year anniversary of the government-backed bailout of bear stearns, i cannot in good conscience vote to remove the guardrails we put in place to prevent big banks from playing fast and loose with our economy in the first place. the financial crisis and recession stripped trillions of dollars in wealth from communities all across the country, and while banks were

bailed out, families were left reeling with the consequences, from foreclosure to job losses to hard-hit retirement accounts and falling home values, the american people bore the brunt of the financial crisis. for years, washington protected wall street from sensible regulations when we should have been protecting consumers. unfortunately, it took the greatest financial crisis since the great expression for us to pass -- great depression for us to pass the wall street reform and consumer protection act. for us to make a fundamental choice to reject a system that took advantage of consumers and instead stand for a banking system that is more fair, transparent, and accountable to the american people. to quiet spanish philosopher joy santiano, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. only in washington would anyone think it's a good idea to commemorate the ten-year

anniversary of the financial crisis with a bill that dares big banks to get bigger and increases risk to taxpayers. i look forward to the day when this congress strives to do better by the working families that lost their homes, their jobs, and their life savings during the crisis. the hardworking families who had to fight their way back from the recession without bailouts and are counting on us to fight for them in washington. that's what i intend to do, mr. president. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: and the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call: