quorum call:

mr. crapo: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak -- the presiding officer: we're -- mr. crapo: excuse me. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i rise again today to speak further on senate bill 2155, the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protection act. we've had a lot of discussion on the floor about in bill in the last few days, and anybody who took the opportunity to watch all of that debate sees that there is a strong bipartisan support for this bill.

and a strong debate coming from some corridors trying to say that the bill creates greater risk in our financial community. i thought -- i'd like to address exactly what this bill does and then respond to some of those charges which i consider to be completely unfounded. the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protection act is aimed at right sizing regulation for financial institutions, including community banks and credit unions, making it easier for consumers to get mortgages and to obtain credit. i've said a number of times, and i will repeat, that back when we were debating the dodd-frank legislation about ten years ago now, it was marketed to the public as a bill to address excesses and problems on wall street by the big megabanks of our country. but its provisions hit hardest

on main street. i actually, as i've said, held a news conference in boise, idaho, my home state, on main street in boise, idaho, and said the bull's eye, the crosshairs of this bill and the bull's eye of this bill are on main street. not wall street. but what's happened in the last ten years? the wall street banks have been phenomenally profitable. they have been very successful. and the smaller banks, the credit unions, the community banks, even the regional banks have been hammered. we are losing credit unions and, more specifically, consumer -- excuse me -- community banks across this nation at an

alarming pace. and the reason, the primary reason is the phenomenally significant increased regulatory burden that they face. i've had colleagues of mine -- i've heard colleagues of mine on the floor in the last couple of days talking about specific community banks and credit unions in their states that have had so much pressure put on them, so much burden and financial cost put on them by the excessive regulations that they have either gone out of business or stopped issuing mortgages, just stopped doing mortgage business, or stopped doing loans of certain types that are beneficial to our small businesses. and so the real victims aren't even just the community banks and credit unions. it is the people, the people who want to get a loan in their local communities and who are entirely worthy of getting a loan to buy a house.

but their credit unions and community banks are no longer in that business, or they are no longer in existence. that's what this bill is addressing. the bill also increases important consumer protections for veterans, senior citizens, victims of fraud, and those who fall on tough financial times. the provisions in this bill will directly address some of the problems that i frequently hear about from financial institutions. let me explain in a little more detail just what that is. as i've already discussed some, community banks and credit unions are simple institutions focused on relationship lending and have special relationships with the people in their communities. the bankers go to church or play ball or their kids go to school with each other, with their

customers. they know their customers, and they're willing to work with them to help them be successful. they provide credit to traditionally underserved and rural communities, where it may be harder to being a ses banking products -- to access banking products and services or get a loan. dodd-frank instituted new mortgage loans and complex capital requirements on community banks and credit unions that hindered public access to mortgage credit and lending more broadly. i guess i'll just insert here, this phenomenon that we often see in washington of one size fits all or cookie-cutter solutions from washington to a problem is directly the kind of problem that we're seeing here. our smaller financial institutions are treated as though they were large megabanks, as though their business models and their

portfolios contain the same kind of risk as the larger banks. yet, they don't have the same business models. they don't have the same risk footprint. but they are forced to go through phenomenally expensive regulatory burdens for no good reason. i can't tell you how many of these small bankers and credit union folks have said to me, we, our industry did not cause or have any part of the financial crisis. but we are being asked to pay the price. and that's what this bill deals with. in july of 2016, the american action forum attempted to estimate the number of paperwork hours and final costs associated with these rules and regulations that i'm talking about. in total, the forum estimated that the law had imposed more than $36 billion until final rule costs and $73 million

paperwork hours as of july 2016. now what does that mean? to put these figures into perspective, the costs are nearly $112 per person or $310 per household. additionally, it would take 36,950 employees -- that's 36,950 employees working full time to complete a single year of the law's paper based on the agency's calculations themselves. our bill is focused on providing meaningful relief to our community banks and credit unions helping them to prudently lend to consumers, home buyers, and small businesses. small businesses that we all acknowledge are the engines of our economy, yet lack credit and lack access to capital because of these unnecessary rules.

that's why the first part of the name of this bill is economic growth. this bill will provide a needed shot in the arm for our economy across this country. by responsibly expanding the safe harbor, it addresses severe appraiser shortages in rural areas. it exempts certain loans from escrow requirements. our bill will ease the compliance and regulatory reporting requirements borne by many of these small financial using toes and free up scarce resources for their communities, enabling more individuals to find a home loan or get the funding to start a business. and this does not increase financial risk. a number of local credit unions have weighed in on the positive impact our bill will have on increasing access to affordable mortgage credit.

additionally, had our bill's provision on a rule called trid, a three-day waiting period, had they been in place in 2013, it would have helped over 1.5 million credit union members enabling them to take advantage of a lower interest rate and to avoid potential delays in the mortgage origination process. i'll tell you, anybody who has had to go through the mortgage or ridge nation process knows the paperwork i'm talking about. our bill simplifies the capital regime compared to the current basel iii requirements for are larger financial institutions. rebecca ra mero -- r amiro, and the c.e.o. elect of the

community bankers of america made an observation, she said under basel iii, community capital has become punitive and complex. do we really need four definitions of regulatory capital, a capital conservation buffer and impossiblably complex rules? applying the rule to community banks in a one size fits all manner harms the consumers and businesses we serve. she added, i seriously doubt that my grandfather would have founded sentinel if he had to comply with basel iii and the other new regulations that exist today. we want to encourage people to bank in their communities. dodd-frank also dealt with mid-sized and regional banks and our bill does too. dodd-frank swept many simple mid-sized and regional banks into the enhanced prudential

standards, but it was meant for the largest and most complex institutions. each new regulation poses a tradeoff between hiring new employees to help comply with those standards versus employees to provide customers the products and services they want and need. darren smithy treasurer for regions bank based in alabama described the implications of this on his institution saying, we now have more people in our organization devoted to compliance related matters than we do for commercial lending. and the direct cost as well as management's time and attention to meeting these rules creates a disproportionate burden on regional banks. collectively the incremental cost of regulatory compliance exceeds $2 billion annually. and the $2 billion in costs that

mr. smithy mentioned were just the direct costs. indirect costs included management and other business unit's time from being diverted from fully serving their clients. these are not just empty numbers. behind these numbers are real economic consequences, a fact mr. smithy noted in his testimony before the banking committee. for a company like regions, that standard would likely liberate, in his words, would likely liberate as much as 10% additional capacity for lending which in his bank's case would be $8 billion to $10 billion. that's capital and access that is not available for individuals, families, and small businesses in this nation. that's one bank. during another banking committee hearing robert hill, c.e.o. of south state corporation, a

mid-sized bank, noted when their institution crossed the threshold, south state was impacted by over $20 billion a year, a significant sum for a bank our size, he said. what impact does that have on our local communities? for us, this bank, he says that equates to 300 jobs, approximately 10% of our branches were closed. and even more jobs diverted away from lending to regulatory compliance. section 401 of our bill raises this cfiusy threshold for applying standards from $50 billion to $350 billion, a level that many financial experts encouraged for years. and the $10 billion threshold for applying an annual company stress test to mid-sized banks

while maintaining important safeguards against risks to the united states. this will free up valuable financial and human resources to help keep more branches open, increase lending to consumers, home buyers, and small businesses and lower the cost of borrowing for consumers. the bill also deals with housing policy. our bill provides some important improvements to h.u.d. programs, making them more effective and efficient and enabling housing authorities across the country to address the housing needs in their communities. it enhances the h.u.d. family self-sufficiency program, which will enable families currently assisted by h.u.d. to obtain job training, education, and child care and ultimately achieve financial independence. specifically, the bill would broaden the scope of supportive services that can be offered to

these participants, including homeownership assistance, training in asset management, obtaining a g.e.d., and education in pursuit of a post secondary degree or certification. it would also streamline the administration of the program, making it easy for local public housing authorities to deliver it in their communities. and for the first time ever our bill will enable many families who live in privately owned apartments backed by project-based rental assistance to participate in the program. our bill will target small public housing agencies operating in rural communities. while smaller public housing authorities have fewer staff and resources than larger urban agencies, they too are currently held to the same burdensome regulatory requirements as some of the largest ones in the

country. as a result more of their time and money is spent completing paperwork and less is able to be dedicated promoting access to affordable housing in these communities. our bill would provide tailored regulatory relief that recognizes the unique challenges faced by smaller public housing authorities in rural areas. specifically, it would provide a simpler option for calculating utilities, simplify new developments, and make it easier to coordinate efforts such as sharing waiting lists and enable neighboring agencies to pool their resources to develop larger projects. these changes will set the small agencies up for success and enable them to direct a greater amount of time, effort and resources promoting access to affordable housing. the bill is also named a

consumer protection bill. it ensures that key consumer protections remain in place and increases protections for consumers who fall on hard financial times or become victims of fraud. following the equifax data breach we held two hearings. these hearings demonstrated bipartisan support for some important measures. the bill provides one free year of fraud alerts for consumers potentially impacted by the equifax breach or other instances of fraud. it gives consumers unlimited free credit feezs and unfeez -- freezes and unfreezes during the year. it allows parents to turn on and off credit reporting for children under 16. the bill also includes important prongsings for veterans and senior citizens. the department of veterans' affairs choice program provides

non-v.a. care if they can't access care at a medical facility. unfortunately, the v.a. choice program has been rifed with issues including delayed payments and misassigned medical bills to veterans. as a result, veterans have seen negative credit items on their reports which unnecessarily complicates their and their family's lives. the credit agencies alleviated this problem by delaying medical debt on a credit report more than 180 days. our bill goes a step further. by prohibiting medical debt from nonv.a. medical providers from being reported to credit reporting agencies for one year and provides veterans a process to dispute or remove incorrect

information already on their reports. according to a study conducted by metlife, seniors lose at least $2.9 billion annually in reported cases of exploit -- exploitation. the national adult protective services association estimated that one in 44 cases of financial abuseever reported. current bank privacy laws make it difficult for the financial institutions and their families and their employees to report any potential fraudulent activity without incurring legal liability. and as a result, few cases of financial abuse are reported. our bill would give financial advisors civil liability protection when reporting suspected financial abuse of seniors. this will empower and encourage our financial service representatives to identify warning signs of common scams

and help stop financial fraud targeting our seniors. now, i'd like to turn for just a moment -- i've gone over some of the positive benefits and provisions in this bill. i'd like to turn for a moment to the krit criticism -- to the criticisms. some of the tax that are that this will help the big banks get richer at the expense of poor people. a common type of attack to fix a regulation in the financial system. one of the things that you've heard is that it gives the regulators too much flexibility to tailor regulations to the size of the institution being regulated. this bill carefully balance the

need to have discretion at the technical level while imposing appropriate tailoring for main street banks and maintaining core supervisory tools for the largest banks. regulators will still be required to ensure that banks operate in a safe and sound manner and still retain extensive authorities to do so. the bill also requires regulators to do more to tailor regulations to ensure that the level of regulation and scrutiny of banks reflects the potential risks posed by the institutions, something that folks in my state would say is just common sense. and in the face of all of this, we've talked to a lot of regulators themselves to see what they think of the idea. and they are consistently saying, let us have the flexibility to regulate appropriately and we will do the job. we will assure that we have

safety and soundness and we will assure that we are not putting undue regulatory burdens on our financial institutions, particularly the smallest ones. federal reserve chairman jay powell said, you know, we really want the most stringent things to be happening at the stemmaticly important banks, the most stringent stress tests and we want to tailor or taper as we go down into less systematically important institutions. he said that they are not systematically important. what he meant by that they don't. the presiding officer: vent the risks, we should analyze and regulate them in a more appropriate fashion. federal reserve vice chairman for supervision randy quarrels has noticed the importance of tailoring. he said, one of the important

themes is to ensure the character of the regulation is adapted to the character of the institution being regulated, what has become the word tailoring. i fully support that and i think it is not only important to recognize the different levels of risk and types of risk that different institutions in the system pose, but that it also makes for better and more efficient regulation, and efficient regulation allows the financial system to more efficiently support the real economy. that's what we're talking about here. so i do think that we should look very carefully at tailoring capital regulation and other types of regulation to the particular character of the institutions that are regulated. and that includes their size, and that includes other aspects of the character. another critique that i heard is that the bill erodes the power of stress testing as a supervisory tool. in one way or another, many have

stood on this floor and talked about the need to have this kind of flexibility, and others have stood on this floor and said that it creates a huge threat to our economy. to ensure that the public and the members understood what the bill does, we had a hearing -- well, actually we have this hearing every year. it's called the humphrey-hawkins hearing. it's a time each year when the chairman of the federal reserve comes and testifies to the senate and then to the house. this year when the chairman of the federal reserve came before the senate to ensure that people understand what this bill does, i asked the chairman, jay powell, about it. i asked him if this bill were to pass is it accurate that the federal reserve would still be required to have a supervisory stress test with total assets

between $150 billion to $200 billion? mr. crapo: he replied, yes, it is. i asked is it accurate that the bill's change of the threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion for enhanced credential standards does not weaken oversight of the largest globally systemic banks. he said, that is correct. the dodd-frank act established a $50 billion asset threshold to apply enhanced credential standards to banks. applying enhanced standards broadly to regional banks with simple business models and low-risk profiles has had significant consequences in the markets place. although there's been much debate about the appropriate level for the threshold, there is bipartisan agreement that $50 billion is too low, including among federal reserve chairman powell, former federal reserve

bank chairman yellen, former acting comptroller noreika and former comptroller curry. jay powell said our view has been that the combination of raising the threshold and giving us the ability to go below it in cases where needed gives us the tools that we need. and former chair, federal reserve chair janet yellen has said we've already said we would favor some increase. if congress sticks with the $1 threshold, that we would support some increase in the threshold. an approach based on business model or factors is also a workable approach from our point of view. conceiveably some of the enhanced standards should apply to more firms with lower level of assets and others with higher levels. so i think either type of approach is something we could work with and would be supportive of. that's the former chair of the

federal reserve. our bill right sizes regulations by raising the $50 billion threshold to $250 billion. banks with total assets below $100 billion are exempt immediately from these enhanced standards, while those with between $100 billion and $250 billion are presumed exempt 18 months after the bill is enacted unless the federal reserve board determines that they need to have some additional level of standard applied. and the federal reserve is given full authority to do so. the provision allows the federal reserve to tailor regulations to a bank's risk model and business profile. the provision in no way diminishes the effectiveness of regulations and provides the federal reserve sufficient regulatory supervisory discretion to apply these enhanced standards on any firm that it deems a threat to systemic risk or safety and

soundness. let me restate that. if you heard any of the attacks, you heard that the federal reserve won't be able to adequately regulate the banks. the past two chairmen of the federal reserve have said that is not correct. but the bill itself provides that the federal reserve continues to have the authority to apply enhanced standards on any firm it deems a threat to systemic risk or safety and soundness. and, again, for those who are tacking -- attacking the bill, i think their arguments are unfounded and, frankly, based in an effort to try to create concern about a risk that does not exist. this provision also requires the federal reserve to apply a periodic supervisory stress test to banks with between $100 billion and $200 billion in assets, something that is often

overlooked about by those who are commenting on the bill. mr. president, i tried to go over some of the positive aspects of this bill and explain why its title is economic growth, regulatory relief and consumer protection, and to respond to some of the false attacks, unfounded attacks on this bill. this bill does not create any increased risk at the level of supervision for the megabanks, those that were intended to be the target of dodd-frank when it was adopted. but it does provide increased support for those community banks and credit unions and those regional banks and mid-sized banks that are being so badly hurt and whose customers are being so much deprived of needed and justified access to credit and capital. that's what this debate is about. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation as

we move forward and help us to bring economic growth and regulatory relief and consumer protection to all americans. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, anyone tune in to the senate floor this week is probably very confused right now, and that's because we're not debating how to address the scourge of gun violence plaguing this country, just 22 days after the horrific parkland mass shooting and following a near universal call from the american people for congress to get serious about guns. they're debating it in the state legislature in florida, but we just don't have time here in the

united states senate to debate this overarching issue of gun safety in our country. and the american people may be confused because we're not debating the fate of the 800,000 dreamers and the uncertainty that they still face. confused because we're not debating our crumbling infrastructure, which despite repeated calls from this president, we have seen nothing resembling a credible plan from him to fix our nation's bridges, roads, and water systems, and provide broadband for rural americans. democrats do have a real plan, and we should be debating that. but, no, instead just three months after the passage of massive tax giveaways that handed over more than $1 trillion to the wealthiest americans and megacorporations, we're here debating a giveaway

to the world's biggest banks. we have moved on from tax handouts to the wealthy to taxpayer-funded bailouts for wall street mega banks. that's not my opinion. the nonpartisan congressional budget office released their analysis of this bailout bill and noted that the risk of a financial crisis would go up under this legislation. why in the world is congress doing anything that increases the risk of a financial crisis? it's only been ten years since the great recession, but republicans seem to have forgotten about that. and maybe that's why this week is so confusing, back the backers of this bill are not talking about the risks to the entire financial system that they are enabling. they've forgotten that, and only in talking about the benefits to community banks. and, yes, there are some

benefits. those of us on the other side of this legislation are not arguing about that point. you could probably find consensus among all 100 senators here in this body that there is a legitimate targeted relief that we can and should provide for those community banks. but that's far from all that this bill does. this community bank relief is being used to protect the giveaways for some of the biggest banks in this country. anyone listening to the supporters of this legislation would have no idea that 25 of the 38 largest banks in the united states will have critical dodd-frank rules rolled back for them. anyone listening would have no idea that banks with up to $250 billion in assets are being told that the current rules are too tough for them. these banks receive $48 billion

in taxpayer-funded bailout money. those banks are not community banks. but now a decade after the financial collapse of 2008, we're saying that it's probably okay. we're pretty sure they have learned their lessons. we're pretty sure that's how the big banks will put the economic security of the country ahead of their own profits. so bottom line, this bill, the economic growth, regulatory relief and consumer protection act, will increase risk to our entire economy. and the fact that the words consumer protection are mentioned last should make clear that they are simply an afterthought. but when large institutions fail, whether it's lehman brothers, enron, a.i.g., it is everyday working consumers who get hit the hardest and pay the

highest price. it is the rule on wall street, on the way up the big guys clean up. on the way down the little guys get cleaned out. and we saw that during the last financial crisis when millions of americans lost their jobs or their homes. and we are seeing it today with increasingly common data breaches that common -- that compromise americans' financial and personal information. in recent years devastating data breaches have become the new normal. the likes of j.p. morgan, chase, yahoo, ebay, t.j. maxx and sony are among so many who have become synonymous with massive data breaches. and of course there's equifax which is both a credit reporting agency and a data broker. equifax's sole mission is using

and profiting from consumers' most personal information, and they failed to protect that information. more than 145 million americans' social security numbers, birth dates, addresses and in some instances even driver's license numbers and credit card numbers were compromised because equifax failed to institute even the most basic security protocols. it seems that for the american consumer, every year is the year of the data breach. and they're sick and tired of their information falling into the wrong hands. so as the senate debates how to ensure financial institutions do not endanger the american economy the way they did during the financial crisis, we cannot forget our constituents' calls for new data protection rules. and that is why i have filed my data broker accountability and

transparency act as an amendment to this legislation. and i thank senators blumenthal and sanders and whitehouse for joining me. my colleagues and i, republicans and democrats alike, were outraged when we learn of the equifax pact and how it hurts our constituents across the country. but what have we accomplished in the united states senate since then? nothing. and the threat is only growing. we have an entire industry whose whole business model is predicated on profiting on americans' most sensitive information. they are collecting it, storing it, selling it, and in many instances losing it in data breaches. consumers don't even know who these companies are. they live in the shadows of our economy. consumers rarely have any direct contact or business relationship with a data broker. yet, they know merely everything

about you. that's not just social security numbers. detailed credit histories, addresses, driver's license numbers. that's information on what you read, what music you listen to, your children, and your medical history. in today's economy, you, the american consumer, are the commodity that is bought and sold on the open market, and right now you have no rights. data brokers are collecting and sharing america's personal information without your knowledge, without your consent. right now american consumers are completely powerless. you can't say stop selling my information to any of these companies, and that is unacceptable. we need transparency, we need accountability. and that's why i've urged my colleagues to support my data

broker accountability and transparency act. my amendment would hold data brokers accountable. first, my amendment allows consumers to access and correct the information that data brokers hold about them. americans should be able to stop the spread of inaccurate information that could damage their personally and financially. secondly, my amendment provides consumers with the right to stop data brokers from using, sharing, or selling their personal information for marketing purposes, third, my amendment requires data brokers to implement comprehensive privacy and data security programs and to provide reasonable notice in the case of breaches. equifax should have been required to have robust security to protect america's information. we must stop the next equifax. it has now been six months since the public became aware of that breach and congress has yet to

enact any major legislation in response. we're still in the data broker wild west. american consumers are still powerless and the next breach could be around the koarn. -- corner. so here's the financial services bill that we're taking up. here's a bill that's directly re lated to these banks that we are talking about. here is an opportunity for us to begin to figure out a way of protecting consumers in this data breach area where their financial records, where their health records, where their families' records could be compromised. what's the solution? well, we are moving through legislation that deals with the problems that the bankers say that they have, but we're not dealing with problems that consumers say they have with these financial institutions.

so when do we take up that bill? when do we'll finally say to the largest companies, what are the protections? what are the safeguards that are going to be constructed so that people's personal information is not compromised, so that data brokers aren't able to create a world in which everybody's information is just part of their profit-making opportunity? that's what we should be talking about. so let's have a big debate out here. let's ensure that each and every one of these issues is dealt with and i would urge my colleagues to support my amendment because we've got to get to the heart of this equifax issue. we've got to actually deal with the world as it has changed, and if the proponents of this bill say that the world has changed since the crash back in 2008 and 2009, then the world has also

changed with regard to the potential for the compromise of the information of every american. let's have that debate as well in the same building. i urge that my amendment be put in order and i urge that the members of the senate support it. it's time for us to give those protections to consumers which they are crying out for. no individual consumer is crying out for this change in the banking bill, but they are crying out for protections in a system where they have no voice, no way to ensure that their own family's personal data is not compromised. so, mr. president, i thank you, and at this point i -- i yield back to the chair. and i also question the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: -- further proceedings under the quorum call be suspensed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes

each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on agriculture, nutrition and forestry be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1177 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk shall report. the clerk: h.r. 1177, an act to direct the secretary of agriculture to release on behalf of the united states the condition that certain lands conveyed to the city of old town maine be used for a municipal airport and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motioned reconsidered and made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 4:00 p.m. monday, march 12. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning

hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. i further ask that following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of s. 2155 and notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the filing deadlines with respect to the cloture motions filed during today's sessions be monday at 4:30 p.m. for first-degree amendments and 5:30 p.m. for second-degree amendments. notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the clorms -- the clrms filed during -- cloture motions filed during today's session ripen add 5:30 monday. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned til 4:00 p.m. on monday.