Floor Statements

Mr. President, I first thank Senator Alexander for the great efforts he has undergone to bring this legislation forward.

The Senate is working as it should. We are processing amendments. Hopefully, we will make it through all of our appropriations bills this year and go back to regular order so that we avoid the kinds of collisions we have had all too often in the past few years as we try to accomplish the business of our government.

As we have been told, the next amendment planned to be voted on in the next few minutes, we hope, is the Crapo-Whitehouse amendment. This amendment is one that focuses on our nuclear energy in the United States.

Nuclear energy is a carbon-free emissions source of energy. It is becoming recognized as one of the more important parts of the energy solution in the United States, and our amendment does a very simple thing. It creates a pilot project at the Idaho National Laboratory to begin perfecting and implementing the process of processing spent naval fuel into fuel that can be utilized in our new, advanced reactors.

Currently, when naval fuel from our reactors in our Navy ships is spent, it still has about 80 percent of its value or its energy in it. The new, advanced reactors need about a 20-percent level. So we can literally get about four times as much fuel out of a spent naval fuel rod for new, advanced reactors as is in the rod itself, once it is ready for processing.

This is a tremendous source of new energy for the United States and one that should help us as we move forward in developing an ``all of the above'' energy policy for the United States. I encourage my colleagues, when we have the opportunity to vote for this, to support it and help us to move forward in this important part of our national energy policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to confirm Brian Montgomery as Federal Housing Commissioner. The Federal Housing Administration or FHA plays an important role in today's housing finance market, promoting homeownership and ensuring access to affordable mortgage credit for millions of Americans.

When FHA operates in a safe, viable manner, it can help many deserving people gain a foothold in our housing market who otherwise would not have been able to do so. FHA also plays a countercyclical role in the mortgage marketplace, providing market liquidity in times when traditional sources of home financing dry up, as they did a decade ago.

Since 1934, the FHA has insured mortgages for more than 40 million families. Today, the FHA is the largest mortgage insurer in the world. It is also the primary facilitator of reverse mortgages and supports a nationwide network of housing counseling agencies. Yet for nearly 4 years it has not had a Senate-confirmed leader.

Fortunately, the time has finally come to fill this vacancy. I know Brian Montgomery will do a terrific job. Brian Montgomery is an ideal candidate to take up the mantle because he has done it before.

Mr. Montgomery provided steadfast leadership at the helm of FHA between 2005 and 2009, under Presidents Bush and Obama, during one of the most trying times the housing markets had ever seen.

His nearly unanimous support from housing stakeholders speaks to this strong track record of experience and expertise. Once confirmed, Mr. Montgomery can hit the ground running, moving FHA forward in pursuit of its continuing mission.

I look forward to continued conversations with him on opportunities to improve America's housing finance system, which continues to be urgently needed. I also look forward to working with him on how we can make HUD programs more effective and more efficient, with better stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Thirteen years ago, this body confirmed Mr. Montgomery on a voice vote to serve as FHA Commissioner. I ask my colleagues to once again confirm him to this critical role.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nominations of Ms. Jelena McWilliams to be Chair and a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

As one of the three primary Federal financial regulators, the FDIC plays a critical role in the U.S. financial system, particularly for community banks. As head of the FDIC, Ms. McWilliams will be responsible for administering the Deposit Insurance Fund and ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system while also promoting economic growth. She will also contribute to deliberations on financial stability as a member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

In having focused extensively on financial institutions throughout her career in both the private and public sectors, Ms. McWilliams is supremely qualified for this position.

She has a unique view of the U.S. regulatory system and its regulated entities, most recently serving as the chief legal officer, executive vice president, and corporate secretary for Fifth Third Bank, which is a regional bank based in Ohio. Prior to that, she served as a valuable member of the Banking Committee's staff for both Senator Shelby and me. Ms. McWilliams also worked as an attorney at the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis and on the Small Business Committee under former Senator Snowe.

Many of my colleagues and I can personally attest to her qualifications, her good judgment, and her expertise, which will be an asset to the FDIC and to the country.

At her nomination hearing in January, Ms. McWilliams demonstrated a deep knowledge of the issues overseen by the FDIC as well as a commitment to carrying out its mission. She discussed how her personal experience has shaped her conviction in the FDIC's unique responsibility as a deposit insurer, noting that one of the side effects of the civil war that broke apart the former Yugoslavia was a collapse of its financial system. Her parents, who still lived there, had their savings disappear overnight when a local bank closed its doors. Yugoslavia had no deposit insurance, and her then 68-year-old father returned to work as a day laborer.

As she stated at her hearing, ``I can assure you that the core mission of the FDIC resonates profoundly with me and, if confirmed, I will not take its mission or my duties lightly.''

Ms. McWilliams has conveyed a strong desire to encourage economic growth and facilitate new bank creation by continuing to address the disproportionate regulatory burden that is faced by community banks. Additionally, she acknowledged the need to expand Americans' access to credit and the banking system.

If confirmed as a member and Chair of the FDIC, I look forward to having the opportunity to work with Ms. McWilliams on these important issues. I strongly support her nominations today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, at noon, the Senate will begin the process of voting--two votes. The first of those votes will be a vote on a resolution brought to the Senate by Senator Moran and Senator Toomey to reject a rule proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2013 action in which it sought to assert jurisdiction over auto finance guidance. I use the word ``rule'' guardedly, though, because, as you will see from my remarks, this was an end run by the CFPB in two ways. First, the CFPB doesn't have jurisdiction over auto finance. Second, the CFPB did not use the Administrative Procedure Act to adopt a rule; it sought to implement a rule through a process of issuing a guidance to avoid the scrutiny and the legal challenges to its effort to assert this jurisdiction.

It is important that Congress disapprove this guidance because it was an attempt by the CFPB to make substantive policy changes through guidance rather than through the rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. As I said before, it is also an attempt to regulate auto dealers, who were explicitly exempted from CFPB supervision and regulation under the Dodd-Frank act. Finally, it is also a rule that has caused great difficulty and problems in the marketplace, hurting auto dealers and consumers alike.

The CFPB itself, when undertaking this action, admitted what it was doing. The CFPB rejected developing a rule using its statutory authority because the actions it was seeking to regulate are ostensibly those of dealers over whom it has no regulatory authority. It is interesting that even in the CFPB's own documentation of what it was doing, it indicated that it didn't have the authority to do it. So the CFPB decided to develop a guidance, rather than a rule, as a backdoor way to regulate auto dealers.

The CFPB's indirect auto bulletin represents a departure from typical Federal agency practice, as reflected in the GAO's conclusion that its rule is subject to CRA requirements. In other words, in a ruling, the GAO said: Yes, this actually is a rule even though the Administrative Procedure Act wasn't followed. That decision by the GAO gives this Congress the authority to reject the CFPB's actions.

Some of my colleagues on the other side say that disapproving guidance is somehow a loophole we are using because we should only have authority to disapprove a specific rule. The GAO's ruling on the CFPB's guidance clearly puts this within the jurisdiction of this Senate.

I would point my colleagues to a statement from, among others, Senator Reid in the Congressional Record from 1996 when the Congressional Review Act was passed, explaining what the authors' intent was when passing this legislation. He said: ``[T]he authors are concerned that some agencies have attempted to circumvent notice-and- comment requirements by trying to give legal effect to general statements of policy, `guidelines,' and agency policy and procedure manuals. The authors admonish the agencies that the APA's broad definition of `rule' was adopted by the authors of this legislation to discourage circumvention of the requirements'' of it.

As a result of these significant concerns, this resolution has attracted substantial support, including from 14 different organizations involved with helping consumers buy a vehicle, and an endorsement via a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House. The following organizations submitted letters: the Chamber of Commerce, the Credit Union National Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association, the American Financial Services Association, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the National RV Dealers Association, the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, the American International Automobile Dealers Association, the National Auto Auction Association, the Motorcycle Industry Council, and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Finally, I would like to respond to the assertion that disapproving this guidance somehow allows auto dealers to discriminate. That is the issue that is at stake here. The reason that Congress did not give the CFPB jurisdiction over auto dealers is that the auto dealers are already subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. If we reject this resolution, the auto dealers will continue to be subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which will continue to apply to all creditors, which means auto dealers who extend credit will be prohibited from discriminating against customers on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin, marital status, or because one receives public assistance.

In other words, we are not changing the law. We are not taking away any protections in the law. We are stopping a rogue agency from continuing to be able to enforce a rule which it sought to create by avoiding the Administrative Procedure Act.

I urge my colleagues to vote to support this resolution.

Mr. President, I yield my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the second vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to start the first vote immediately.

Mr. President, I have 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Abusive Robocalls and How We Can Stop Them.''

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Appropriate Role of States and the Federal Government in Protecting Groundwater.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10:30 a.m to conduct a hearing ``Treaties.''

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: David Williams, of Illinois, Robert M. Duncan, of Kentucky, and Calvin R. Tucker, of Pennsylvania, each to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2.30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The 30th Anniversary of Tribal Self- Governance: Successes in Self-Governance and an Outlook for the Next 30 Years''.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.''

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, during votes and off the Senate floor to conduct a hearing on the following nominations. Paul R. Lawrence, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Benefits, and Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., of Michigan, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 9.30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Exploitation of Older Americans by Guardians and Others they Trust.''

Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans

The Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The History of Structure of the Multiemployer Pension System.''

Subcommittee on Airland

The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 3:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and

Data Security

The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Olympic Abuse: The Role of National Governing Bodies in Protection our Athletes.''

Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration

The Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, at 2.30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening and Reforming America's Immigration Court System.''

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Senator Moran and Senator Toomey's resolution using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the CFPB's 2013 auto finance guidance.

It is important that Congress disapprove this guidance because it was an attempt by the CFPB to make substantive policy changes through guidance rather than through the rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. It was also an attempt to regulate auto dealers who were explicitly exempted from the CFPB's supervision and regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act.

According to an internal CFPB memo, the CFPB rejected developing a rule using its statutory authority to regulate unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices because ``the potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive actions are ostensibly those of dealers, over whom we have no regulatory authority.''

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted, ``That didn't stop former CFPB chief Richard Cordray, who used the back door of auto- financing to regulate dealers.''

Make no mistake--the CFPB's decision to develop guidance instead of a rule was intentional. At Senator Toomey's request, the Government Accountability Office evaluated the bulletin to see if it should have been submitted to Congress as required by the Congressional Review Act.

The GAO concluded:

The Bulletin is a general statement of policy designed to

assist indirect auto lenders to ensure that they are

operating in compliance with ECOA and Regulation B, as

applied to dealer markup and compensation practices. As such,

it is a rule subject to the requirements of the CRA.

Plainly, the CFPB failed to follow the law by failing to submit the bulletin to Congress. Furthermore, issuing guidance instead of formulating a rule allowed the CFPB to sidestep important aspects of the administrative rulemaking process that provide for accountability, transparency, and thorough evaluation.

Federal agency rules are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally requires an agency to publish a notice of a rulemaking, take comments from the public, and establish an effective date for a rule. Notice and comment is a vital step in the process because it gives individuals and businesses subject to rulemakings the opportunity to provide feedback on the practical effect of a rule's implementation, and it allows an agency to adjust the rule as necessary to avoid any undue consumer harm. In contrast, bulletins generally do not afford the public an opportunity to lend their

voice to the process and have historically been used by Federal agencies to simply restate existing law to aid covered companies' compliance.

The CFPB's indirect auto bulletin represents a departure from typical Federal agency practice, as reflected in the GAO's conclusion that it is a rule subject to CRA requirements.

Without the opportunity for public comment and the ability for the bulletin to be revised to avoid any unintended consequences, auto dealers' incentive to act as an intermediary has been greatly diminished. As a result, consumers will be inconvenienced and have fewer and more expensive financing options when shopping for a vehicle.

Some people opposed to this resolution are concerned about what this means for regulatory guidance more generally. I would note that almost all guidance issued by agencies may qualify as a rule under the Congressional Review Act and must be submitted to Congress for potential disapproval. The CRA's definition of a rule includes, with some limited exceptions, ``the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.''

Explaining the Congressional Review Act's definition of a rule, the GAO said: ``This definition is broad, and includes both rules requiring notice and comment rulemaking and those that do not, such as general statements of policy.''

This particular bulletin, according to GAO, ``advises the public prospectively of the manner in which the CFPB proposes to exercise its discretionary enforcement power and fits squarely within the Supreme Court's definition of a statement of policy.''

Congress has the power to overturn any agency rule. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the power to overturn agency rules using an expedited procedure. There is nothing special about guidance issued by the agencies that should cause people to be concerned, especially a rule masquerading as guidance. Article I grants Congress legislative power, and by disapproving this rule, we are ensuring that the CFPB cannot issue a rule that is substantially the same as the one it just tried to issue.

There have also been questions raised regarding the flawed methodology the CFPB used in its supervisory and enforcement activities based on this bulletin to allege discriminatory auto loan pricing.

In November 2015, the House Financial Services Committee's majority staff issued a report exploring the CFPB's approach to enforcing the ECOA against indirect auto lenders. The report focuses on the controversial use of disparate impact theory and the CFPB's use of a flawed statistical methodology, which only takes into account an individual's last name and ZIP Code in order to determine a probability for race and ethnicity. This approach is less reliable than other, more proven methodologies. A November 2014 study estimated that only 24 percent of African Americans and 50 percent of Asians were correctly identified using this methodology.

In light of such significant concerns, the House introduced legislation in 2015 to nullify the effect of the bulletin and place guardrails around the development of any future indirect auto lending guidance. That bill garnered significant bipartisan support, passing the House by a vote of 332 to 96, including 88 Democrats.

This resolution has attracted substantial support, as well, including from 12 different organizations involved with helping consumers buy a vehicle and an endorsement via a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House.

For example, the chamber of commerce notes that ``internal documents [at the CFPB] demonstrate that even [CFPB] Bureau staff found the data and methodology intended to support the rule `unconvincing.'''

The Independent Community Bankers of America notes that ``since the issuance of the Bulletin, many community bankers have reported added difficulty in meeting the varying borrowing needs of their customers based on confusing and overly-burdensome guidance.''

The National Association of Auto Dealers notes that ``extensive bipartisan congressional engagement has identified several reasons to disapprove the CFPB rule/guidance, including a lack of due process, concerns about the CFPB's failure to adhere to Section 1029 of Dodd- Frank, and the negative impact on consumers and small business dealers.''

The American Bankers Association said that ``the regulatory and enforcement uncertainty caused by this Guidance has caused many banks to exit or to curtail their indirect auto lending, which limits consumer choice and increases the cost of credit.''

The American Financial Services Association said that ``the guidance is harmful because it pressures vehicle finance companies to limit consumers' ability to receive discounted auto loans from dealers. Furthermore, the guidance threatens to raise credit costs and push marginally creditworthy consumers out of the vehicle financing market, and has the potential to harm the vehicle industry and its associated U.S. jobs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the five letters I cited be printed in the Record, as well as a joint letter from the National Auto Dealers Association, the National RV Dealers Association, the American International Automobile Dealers, the Auto Alliance, the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, the National Auto Auction Association, the American Financial Services Association, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, and the Motorcycle Industry Council, all expressing their strong support for S.J. Res. 57.

Finally, President Trump's Statement of Administration Policy also endorses this resolution. I am going to read a few highlights from the statement.

This bulletin limits the ability of auto dealers to offer

auto loans to their customers and was not issued pursuant to

notice-and-comment rulemaking. As a result, the CFPB failed

to allow the public to comment before it made significant

changes to an important sector of the economy. Dodd-Frank

explicitly excludes the regulation of auto dealers from the

CFPB's jurisdiction. Disapproving this bulletin, therefore,

would provide consumers with more options for auto financing

while ensuring that the CFPB abides by congressional limits

on its jurisdiction.

This rule should be disapproved, and any future action on the matter should go through the appropriate rulemaking process established by Congress. If this rule stands, banks, credit unions, and finance companies holding nearly $1.1 trillion in outstanding loans will needlessly face significant liability, and the ability of auto dealers to play a valuable role by matching buyers and lenders will be diminished.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in honoring Idaho State Representative Maxine T. Bell, of Jerome, ID, for her 30 years of serving in the Idaho House of Representatives.

Maxine has been an instrumental leader through economic challenges and an excellent role model for those interested in government service. She was first elected to the Idaho House of Representatives in 1988 and has represented the people of Jerome, Cassia, Minidoka, and rural Twin Falls Counties throughout her time in the Idaho statehouse. She also operated a family farm with her husband, Jack, and was a librarian at the Jerome Junior High School. In the State legislature, she has served as vice chairman of the agricultural affairs committee, as a member of the resources-conservation committee, as chairman of the appropriations committee, and as joint chairman of the joint finance and appropriations committee. Throughout her career, she has been known as someone who brings people together, works hard, and gets things done.

It is no wonder that Maxine Bell has received numerous awards for her distinguished service. These recognitions include being honored multiple times as the Farm Bureau's Friend of Agriculture, Ag All Star by farm organizations, Legislator of the Year by the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Co-operatives Friend, Advocate of the Year from the Idaho Career Development Association, and Legislator of the Year by the Idaho Library Association. She also received Idaho State University's President's Medallion, the Idaho Professional Technical Education Distinguished Service Award, and many other honors.

She is recognized as a strong, solution-driven leader who makes things happen. Her congenial demeanor, quick wit, and keen intellect are just a few of the traits that have made her so beloved and effective over the years. Idahoans have been fortunate to have Representative Bell's leadership in the legislature. We thank Maxine Bell for her outstanding service, congratulate her on her exemplary career, and wish her well as she concludes her service in the State legislature.

Madam President, I object.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of S. 2155, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am asking my colleagues to waive this budget point of order.

In order to offset the Congressional Budget Office's estimated increase in Federal deficits due to the enactment of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the bill contains a provision that reduces the amount of discretionary surplus the Federal Reserve may maintain from $7.5 billion to $6.825 billion.

The Federal Reserve surplus funds have been used in the past to pay for bipartisan legislation emanating from committees that do not have jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve. Unlike those past instances, these funds will be used to offset costs of legislation emanating from the Banking Committee.

In order to provide meaningful relief for consumers, community banks, credit unions, midsized banks and regional banks, I urge my colleagues to waive this point of order.

Mr. President, the time to vote has come, and we are a few minutes over. This is one of those times when the Senate is on a very tight timeline, so I will have the majority of my speech put into the Record. I just wanted to respond in one quick way to some of the comments my colleague from Ohio has just made.

A lot of attacks on this floor have been made saying that this bill rolls back the regulatory authority of the Federal Reserve and exposes all of our large banks to much greater risk or much less supervision than they would have had before and on and on. We knew these attacks were coming. They came in the Banking Committee when we had the markup on this bill.

Basically, I want to read a series of questions and answers I had with the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve about these types of allegations being made about the bill--a bill which is designed to deal with credit unions and community banks and the smaller sector of our economy, not the big banks--all these attacks about rolling back the protections against big banks.

I asked Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell whether it was accurate, if this bill were passed, that the Federal Reserve would still be required to conduct supervisory stress tests for any bank with total assets between $150 billion and $250 billion to ensure that it has enough capital to weather economic downturns.

He answered: Yes, it is.

I asked, if this bill were passed, whether it was accurate that the Federal Reserve would still have sufficient authority to apply any prudential standard--let me repeat that--any prudential standard to a bank with between $100 billion and $250 billion in total assets if the Fed determined that was appropriate.

He answered: Yes, that is true.

I asked whether it was accurate that this bill does not weaken oversight of the largest globally systemic banks.

He answered, correctly, that yes, that was correct.

Then I asked whether it was accurate that the Federal Reserve applies enhanced standards to international banks based on their global total consolidated assets--meaning that our bill would not exempt banks like Deutsche Bank and Santander from section 165 of Dodd-Frank.

He answered: That is correct.

I want to repeat this, because this keeps coming up. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that this bill does not exempt G-SIB foreign banks, such as Deutsche Bank and Santander, and that we do not eliminate the ability of our Federal Reserve to correctly and properly supervise our banks.

We are going to go back and forth over this, but this bill is designed to protect community banks and credit unions. That is why we have such bipartisan support for it.

Mr. President, we have been able to highlight the benefits of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act on the Senate Floor over the last week, and I am glad we have the opportunity to continue that discussion this week.

I have been very encouraged by my colleagues' support for this critical piece of legislation. I thank each of those Senators, including many members of the Banking Committee, for their support, interest, and involvement in the many discussions, hearings, and personal conversations we have had to improve this bill. I also thank all those who voted on the motion to invoke cloture on substitute amendment No. 2151, as modified, to S. 2155.

Since the bill passed out of the Banking Committee, supporters have worked in good faith to include provisions that different Members have offered, including those who do not support the bill.

The substitute amendment we offered last week reflects the additional provisions that the bill's supporters were able to agree on, collectively.

To ensure that everyone understands what the substitute amendment does, let me take a few minutes to explain the changes from the bill that passed out of committee.

This amendment makes both technical and substantive changes to further improve economic growth, regulatory relief, and consumer protections.

This substitute makes changes to the appraisal provision in our bill to add definitions and provide detail on criteria for efforts to document and contact appraisers.

It also strengthens the HMDA provision by adding a ``bad actor'' prohibition, limiting the universe of lenders who can take advantage of the relief to those that do not have ratings of ``need to improve'' on their last two CRA exams or one rating of ``substantial non- compliance'' on their last CRA exam.

It adds further consumer protections on who can take advantage of transitional licenses and adds liability protections for government officials who carry out their official duties.

It modifies a provision by raising the threshold from $15 billion to $20 billion for those Federal savings associations that wish to take advantage of charter conversions.

It modifies the existing provision dealing with applying the Expedited Funds Availability Act, which governs bank deposit holds, to add Guam to the list of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands which would receive the benefit.

It clarifies the current international insurance provision so that the Treasury, Fed, and Federal Insurance Office report to Congress on studies regarding consumer and market impact of international insurance capital standards is only required with respect to final standards.

It also changes the date at which point Treasury and Fed reporting requirements on international insurance regulatory and supervisory forums terminate from December 31, 2022, to December 31, 2024--this aligns with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors' planned timeframe for implementing its insurance capital standard.

It promotes construction and development on Main Street by ensuring that the Federal Reserve appropriately treats certain commercial real estate loans in its rules.

It helps reduce identity fraud by directing the Social Security Administration to accept electronic signatures as consumer consent for financial institutions trying to verify customer ID and root out synthetic ID fraud.

It uses part of the Fed's discretionary surplus as a pay-for.

It expands the existing credit freeze provisions by increasing the circumstances where Americans can get a free credit freeze, and clarifies that an incapacitated person receives the same protections as a minor under the age of 16.

It also adds a provision that gives free and ongoing credit monitoring to Active Duty servicemembers who are serving and sacrificing for our country.

It adds a provision which helps protect veterans from predatory lending by requiring VA lenders to demonstrate a material benefit to consumers when refinancing their mortgages.

It adds a section requiring Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to establish a process for validating and approving credit score models, and requires FHFA to establish standards and criteria for such processes.

The language requires that any credit score model must meet a series of criteria related to predictiveness, accuracy, safety and soundness, and other metrics in order to be approved, to ensure that this will not undermine the quality of underwriting at Fannie and Freddie.

The substitute adds important reports: a GAO report on Puerto Rico foreclosures; and a report on children's lead-based paint hazard prevention and abatement, which is a serious issue in many of our States.

It also makes permanent certain protections for members of uniformed services under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

It also makes further clarifications to the section about enhanced supervision and prudential standards for certain banks, by lowering the asset threshold above which banks have to pay assessments and requiring the Fed

to adjust such charges to reflect the fact that the cost of supervision and regulation of certain institutions will be reduced as a result of this legislation.

It also clarifies that this bill does not affect the legal effect of the Federal Reserve's final rule on foreign banking organizations, and the bill does not limit the Federal Reserve's legal authority to require intermediate holding companies, apply enhanced prudential standards, or tailor regulations for certain foreign banking organizations.

The amendment also adds a new Encouraging Capital Formation title, which includes five capital formation and securities bills that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year, as well as a bill to help companies take advantage of further ways to raise capital and ease burdens on certain publicly traded investment companies.

Lastly, the bill provides additional protections for borrowers and cosigners of private student loans, and requires the Treasury Department to study and promulgate best practices for higher education financial literacy.

All of these additions improve the bill and strengthen the core themes of the existing provisions; namely, improving economic growth, regulatory relief, and consumer protections.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.

Amendment No. 2152 Withdrawn

Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I withdraw my amendment No. 2152.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 5:45 p.m. today; that when the Senate reconvenes, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on the motion to waive; and that following the vote on the motion to waive, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes before we begin voting.

Mr. President, we are about to witness a rare bipartisan moment in the Senate that has been years in the making. We have had the opportunity to highlight this bill over the

last 2 weeks, and I have been very encouraged by my colleagues' support for its critical results.

Again, I thank each of the Senators who support this bill--including many members of the Banking Committee--for their interest, involvement, and the many discussions, hearings, and personal conversations we have had to get to this point.

I want to stop at this point and give a special thanks to my staff, who has spent countless hours, weeks--actually months and years-- getting us to this point on this legislation, and the staff of the other Members who have worked so closely with us as we worked to find a yes to difficult problems and solutions that we are facing.

Since the bill passed out of the Banking Committee, supporters have worked in good faith to include provisions that different Members have offered, including those who do not support the bill. The substitute amendment we introduced last week reflects the additional provisions that the bill supporters were able to agree to.

The final bill we are about to vote on today is the product of careful negotiations and good, old-fashioned statesmanship. The majority of us in this body recognize that our community financial institutions have been struggling to keep up with the regulatory demands coming out of Washington and that it was time to revisit current law and make changes where necessary.

While there are certain provisions that I would like to have included in this bill, I believe the package on which we were able to reach consensus is an important step in the right direction and will deliver much needed relief and economic growth to Main Street America.

When this bill is signed into law, it will right-size regulation for financial institutions, including community banks and credit unions, making it easier for consumers to get mortgages and to obtain credit. Those are the real victims of this regulatory overreach--individuals who find it difficult to get access to credit, to get a loan for college, to get a mortgage for a house, or small businesses seeking to start up or to expand that cannot get necessary access to capital not because they are not creditworthy but because the system we have created makes it so that our smaller financial institutions that do the relationship banking throughout so much of America don't have the ability to serve them anymore. It also increases important consumer protections for veterans, senior citizens, victims of fraud, and those who have fallen on tough financial times.

This bill has received widespread support for good reason. The cycle of lending and job creation has been stifled by onerous regulation. Absent excessive regulatory burdens, local banks and credit unions will be able to focus more on lending and in turn propel economic growth and create jobs.

Not to be overlooked, this is also an important moment for bipartisanship and working across the aisle to legislate. Many people are worried about the gridlocks in Congress. This bill shows that we can work together and can do big things that make a big difference in the lives of people across this country.

Those who support this bill have recognized that, with the right regulation, tailored regulation, we can promote local economic growth through our Nation's smaller financial institutions.

I will end with this: This bill was a bipartisan compromise. The changes are common sense, and it will allow financial institutions to better serve their customers and communities, while maintaining safety and soundness and important consumer protections. At a time of intense political polarization, we have proven that we can work together to get things done.

This is good for small financial institutions, good for small businesses, and good for families across America, and I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.

I yield back my time.

Vote on Motion to Waive

Mr. President, I would like to give an update to all of our colleagues 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 proceed forward with, and we 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 is my hope that we will 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.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise again today to speak further on S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

We have had a lot of discussion on the floor about this bill in the last few days. 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 quarters trying to say that the bill creates greater risk in our financial community. I would 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 rightsizing regulation for financial institutions-- including community banks and credit unions--making it easier for consumers to get mortgages and to obtain credit.

I have said a number of times, and I will repeat, back when we were debating the Dodd-Frank legislation about 10 years ago, 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.

As I have said, I actually held a news conference in Boise, ID--in my home State--on Main Street. I said the crosshairs of this bill and the bulls-eye are on Main Street, not Wall Street.

What has happened in the last 10 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, community banks across this Nation at an alarming pace, and the reason--the primary reason--is the phenomenally significant increased regulatory burden they face.

I have 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 costs 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. So the real victims aren't even just the community banks and credit unions; they are 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 is 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 I frequently hear about from financial institutions. Let me explain in a little more detail just what that is. I have 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 and their customers go to church, play ball, or their kids go to school with each other. They know their customers, and they are 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 access banking products and services or to get a loan.

Dodd-Frank instituted numerous new mortgage rules and complex capital requirements on community banks and credit unions that have hindered consumers' access to mortgage credit and lending more broadly.

I guess I will just insert here, this phenomenon we often see in Washington of one-size-fits-all or cookie-cutter solutions to a problem is directly the kind of problem we are seeing here.

Our smaller financial institutions are treated as though they were large megabanks and 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 bank and credit union folks have said to me: Our industry did not cause or have any part in the financial crisis, but we are being asked to pay the price. That is 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 am talking about. In total, the forum estimated that the law had imposed more than $36 billion in final rule costs and 73 million paperwork hours as of July 2016. 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 is 36,950 employees--working full time to complete a single year of the law's paperwork 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 is 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 qualified mortgage safe harbor, addressing severe appraiser shortages in rural areas, reducing superfluous HMDA reporting requirements, and exempting certain loans from escrow requirements, our bill will ease the compliance and regulatory reporting requirements borne by many of these small financial institutions 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 provisions on a rule called TRID--a 3- day waiting period--had they been in place in 2017, it would have helped over 1.5 million credit union members at over 3,800 credit unions throughout the Nation, enabling them to take advantage of a lower interest rate and to avoid potential delays in the mortgage origination process. I will tell my colleagues, anybody who has had to go through the mortgage origination process today knows the paperwork I am talking about.

Our bill also drastically simplifies the capital regime for certain highly capitalized community banks compared to the current Basel III requirements that are more appropriate for larger, sophisticated financial institutions.

Rebecca Romero Rainey, the former chairman and CEO of Centinel Bank of Taos and CEO-elect of the Community Bankers of America, made a commonsense observation. She said:

Under Basel III, community bank capital regulation has

become significantly more punitive and complex. Do we really

need four definitions of regulatory capital, a capital

conservation buffer, and impossibly complex rules governing

capital deductions and adjustments?

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

Centinel 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 midsized and regional banks, and our bill does too. Dodd-Frank swept many simple midsized and regional banks into its 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.

Deron Smithy, executive vice president and treasurer for Regions Bank, a regional 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 that ``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.'' The $2 billion in costs that Mr. Smithy mentioned were just the direct costs. Indirect costs include management and other business units' time being diverted from fully serving their clients.

These are not just empty numbers; behind these numbers are real economic consequences. That is a fact Mr. Smithy noted in his testimony before the Banking Committee.

For a company like Regions, that standard being lifted

would likely liberate as much as 10 percent additional

capacity for lending, which--

In his bank's case--

would be $8 billion to $10 billion.

That is capital and access that are not available to

individuals, families, and small businesses in this Nation.

That is one bank.

During another Banking Committee hearing, Robert Hill, CEO of South State Corporation, a midsized bank, noted that when their institution crossed the $10 billion threshold, ``South State was impacted by over $20 million per year, a significant sum for a bank our size. What impact does that have on our local communities? For us, that equates to 300 jobs. Approximately 10 percent of our branches were closed, and even more jobs diverted away from lending to regulatory compliance.''

Section 401 of our bill raises the SIFI threshold for applying enhanced prudential standards from $50 billion to $250 billion--a level that many, many financial experts have encouraged for years--and the $10 billion threshold for applying an annual, company-run stress test to midsized banks while maintaining important safeguards against risks to the U.S. financial system. This will free up valuable financial and human resources to help keep more branches open, increase lending to consumers 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 HUD programs, making them more effective and efficient and enabling public housing authorities across the country to better address the housing needs of their local community.

Our bill enhances HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which will enable a greater number of families currently assisted by HUD to obtain job training, education, childcare, and ultimately achieve financial independence. Specifically, the bill would broaden the scope of supportive services that can be offered to these participants, including home ownership assistance, training in asset management, obtaining a GED, and education in pursuit of a postsecondary 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.

For the first time ever, our bill will enable many families who live in privately owned apartments backed by project-based rental assistance to also participate in the FSS Program.

Our bill would also provide targeted regulatory relief to small public housing agencies operating in rural communities. While smaller public housing authorities typically have far fewer staff and resources than larger urban agencies, they, too, are currently held to many of the same burdensome regulatory requirements as some of the largest ones in the country. As a result, this means that more of their time and money are spent completing paperwork and less are able to be dedicated to 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 environmental review requirements for new developments, streamline inspection requirements, and make it easier to coordinate efforts, such as enabling shared waiting lists with neighboring agencies and enabling neighboring agencies to pool their resources to develop larger projects.

These changes will set up these small agencies for success and enable them to direct a greater amount of time, effort, and resources toward their core mission: promoting access to affordable housing.

The bill is also a consumer protection bill. It ensures that key consumer protections remain in place and increases protections for consumers who have fallen on hard financial times or become victims of fraud.

Following the Equifax data breach, we held two credit bureau hearings. These hearings demonstrated bipartisan support for some important measures. The bill provides 1 free year of fraud alerts for consumers potentially impacted by the Equifax breach or other instances of fraud. It gives consumers unlimited free credit 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 protections for veterans and senior citizens. The Department of Veterans Affairs Choice Program provides veterans non-VA medical care if they can't access care at a VA medical facility. Unfortunately, the VA Choice Program has been rife with issues, including delayed payments and misassigned medical bills to veterans. As a result, veterans have experienced negative credit items on their reports, which unnecessarily complicates their and their families' lives.

The largest credit reporting agencies took a step to alleviate this problem by delaying reporting medical debt on a consumer's credit report for 180 days, but more can still be done. Our bill goes a step further by prohibiting medical debt arising from the Choice Program and other non-VA healthcare providers from being reported to credit- reporting agencies for 1 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 financial exploitation. Despite the prevalence of senior financial fraud, the National Adult Protective Services Association estimated that only 1 in 44 cases of financial abuse is ever reported.

Current bank privacy laws make it difficult for the financial institutions 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 advisers 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 wish to turn for just a moment--I have gone over some of the positive benefits and provisions in this bill. I would like to turn for a moment to the criticisms, because, if my colleagues have been listening to the attacks, the attacks are that this is an effort to go help the big banks in America get richer at the expense of poor people. This is a very common type of attack on almost any proposal to fix a regulation in the financial system.

One of the things we have heard is that it gives the regulators too much flexibility to tailor regulations to the size of the institution being regulated. This bill carefully balances the need to provide regulators with the appropriate discretion at the technical level, while imposing specific directions to ensure 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.

In the face of all of this, we have talked to a lot of the 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 ensure that we have safety and soundness, and we will ensure 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 systemically important banks--the most

stringent stress tests, in particular--and we want to tailor

or taper, as we go down into less significant, less

systemically important institutions.

Powell added: ``Those banks [below $100 billion] are not systemically important.

What he meant by that is they don't present systemic risks to the economy. We should analyze them and regulate them and supervise them in a more appropriate fashion.

Federal Reserve Vice Chairman for Supervision Randy Quarles has also noted the importance of tailoring, saying:

One of the important general themes of regulation is

ensuring that 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 that it's not only

appropriate 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 is what we are 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 I have 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 it creates a huge threat to our economy.

We have a hearing each year called the Humphrey-Hawkins hearing when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comes and testifies to the Senate and then to the House. This year, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve came before the Senate. To ensure that people and Members understood what this bill does, I asked Chairman Jay Powell: If this bill were to pass, is it accurate that the Federal Reserve would still be required to conduct a supervisory stress test for any bank with total assets between $100 billion and $250 billion to ensure that it has enough capital to weather economic downturns?

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 prudential 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 prudential standards to banks. Applying enhanced standards broadly to regional banks with simple business models and low-risk profiles has had significant consequences in the marketplace. Although there has 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.

Current Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell said: ``Our view has been that that 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.''

Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has said:

We've already said that we would favor some increase, if

Congress sticks with a dollar 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. Conceivably, some of the enhanced

standards should apply to more firms with lower levels of

assets, and others with higher levels. So I think either type

of approach is something that we could--we could work with

and would be supportive of.

That is the former Chair of the Federal Reserve.

Our bill rightsizes 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 business model and risk profile.

This provision in no way diminishes the effectiveness of prudential regulations, and it provides the Federal Reserve sufficient regulatory and supervisory discretion to apply these enhanced standards on any firm it deems a threat to systemic risk or safety and soundness.

Let me restate that. If you have heard any of the attacks, you have heard that the Federal Reserve will not be able to adequately regulate the banks anymore. 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.

So, again, for those who are 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 by those commenting on the bill.

I have 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 Act and respond to some of the false, 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 midsized banks that are being so badly hurt and whose customers are being so deprived of needed and justified access to credit and capital. That is what this debate is about.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation as we move forward and help us bring economic growth, regulatory relief, and consumer protection to all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Crapo amendment at the desk be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, or NEICA. This measure is the result of a strong bipartisan partnership among many Senators, including Senator Whitehouse, Senator Risch, Senator Booker, Senator Hatch, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Durbin, along with myself and a number of other Senators who have worked with us on this legislation.

I want to give special thanks to Senator Whitehouse, who is here with us today. He has been my tireless partner in this effort. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his hard work and the assistance of his staff. Sometimes, even on the easiest of legislation--and this is not in that category; this is a critical, strong piece that has taken a lot of attention--but sometimes it just takes a lot of work and effort and time. I appreciate Senator Whitehouse's efforts to stick with us, as he actually helped move this ball forward as we have tried to get this across the finish line.

I also want to express strong thanks to Senator Risch, who also deserves strong recognition for his tireless work to get this bill advanced.

This is a Senate companion to a House measure of the very same name, introduced by Representatives Weber, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Lamar Smith. We have been working together to get this bill passed for some time, and I am eager to work with my House colleagues to make sure that NEICA is enacted as soon as possible.

We all recognize that innovation within the nuclear industry must continue and must build on American preeminence in nuclear research and development. Having grown up in Idaho Falls, ID, I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy and the Idaho National Lab, which is a world leader in R&D and a key partner in sustaining our Nation's commercial nuclear power sector. The INL has been home to more than 50 one-of-a-kind nuclear test reactors. It has led innovation after innovation and breakthrough after breakthrough. The imagination, ingenuity, and hard work of the scientists at the Lab, along with the scientists at Argonne and Oak Ridge, ensure that the United States remains the leader in development and commercialization of nuclear power.

Today, many in the industry are focusing on what it takes to keep the current fleet of reactors alive and operational. Industry leaders are worried about the waste issues, the economics of operation, and navigating the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Understandably, many are not focused on the future of nuclear power and what lies beyond the current generation of reactors.

Congress must find a way to help industry deal with the very real challenges that the current fleet faces. Congress must address the waste issue, and we must evaluate the costs and benefits of regulations that the government has placed on this industry. Many of the burdens on the nuclear industry are government-created, and so they must be government-solved. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to provide sound solutions.

Congress can't ignore the challenges of the current fleet, but we must not allow these challenges to keep us from looking forward. The nuclear power industry in America is, for better or worse, increasingly paralyzed by government redtape.

Congress must lead in focusing government agencies toward preparing for the next generation of nuclear reactors. We should create an environment in which industry can grow and advance. If we don't, we will lose to foreign competitors as companies take their technologies and business overseas. This is happening already. Companies are increasingly going to places like China, Russia, South Korea, and India. These countries want to export nuclear technology and are investing heavily toward that goal. If we continue down our current path, these countries will take the lead in setting the rules on proliferation and safety in the advanced nuclear industry. I would prefer that America continue to lead in this area.

The Senate version of NEICA does four very important things to encourage innovation in advanced nuclear power.

No. 1, it directs the Department of Energy to carry out a modeling and simulation program that aids in the development of new reactor technologies.

This is an important first step in allowing the private sector to have access to the capabilities of our National Laboratories to test reactor designs and concepts.

No. 2, it requires the Department of Energy to report its plan to establish a user facility for a versatile reactor-based fast neutron source.

This is a critical step that will allow private companies the ability to test principles of nuclear science and prove the science behind their work.

No. 3, NEICA directs the Department of Energy to carry out a program to enable the testing and demonstration of reactor concepts proposed and funded by the private sector.

This site is to be called the National Nuclear Innovation Center, and it will function as a database to store and share knowledge on nuclear science between Federal agencies and the private sector. The Senate version of NEICA encourages the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to work together in this effort. We would like to see the Department of Energy lead the effort to establish and operate the National Nuclear Innovation Center while consulting with the NRC regarding safety issues. We would also like the NRC to have access to the work done by the center in order to provide its staff with the knowledge it will need to eventually license any new reactors coming out of the center. If these reactors are ever to get to the market, the NRC must be able to understand the ins and outs of the science and work behind their development. The NRC needs the data in order to make data- driven licensing requirements.

No. 4, finally, it requires the NRC to report on its ability to license advanced reactors within 4 years of receiving an application.

The NRC must explain any institutional or organizational barriers it faces in moving forward with the licensing of advanced reactors.

NEICA is an important step in maintaining U.S. leadership in nuclear energy. It will enable the private sector and our National Labs to work together to create cutting-edge achievements in nuclear science. NEICA encourages the smartest, most innovative and creative minds in nuclear science to partner together to move the industry forward. This is a very exciting piece of legislation, and I look forward to working with my congressional colleagues to help American nuclear energy thrive today and prepare for the future.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have been very encouraged by the reaction of my colleagues and their support for the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act over the last few days.

We have heard many stories about how the regulatory burden on our financial institutions has had a direct impact on Main Street. Yesterday, Senator Moran talked about the ranchers who couldn't get a loan because they lacked collateral in an emergency. Senators Heitkamp and Perdue explained the benefits of relationship banking and the advantage of lending based on a personal knowledge of the customer. Senator Corker talked about Dodd-Frank's unintended consequences for small financial institutions. Senator Tester discussed bank consolidation and the real impact it has had on communities in Montana. Senator Donnelly went through the various important consumer protection items included in this bill. Senator Kennedy also talked about some of the important consumer protection provisions and about the lack of access to credit for small businesses in Louisiana. Senator Warner spent a good amount of time defending this robust bipartisan bill against its critics and some of the false information being shared about the bill.

Today, we have heard even more Senators come to the floor with similar stories and expressions of similar sentiments about the need to help free up our small community banks and credit unions around this country from the overpowering burdens they are facing right now in the regulatory world.

Many of my colleagues who are not on the Banking Committee have asked if they could have the time and opportunity to speak about the bill, as well, and we will see them coming to the floor, as we have started to see today, to discuss these kinds of issues. Senators McConnell, Cornyn, Portman, Lankford, and others have been very supportive of these efforts to enact pro-growth, pro-jobs legislation.

We also heard from the bill's critics yesterday. But the resounding message from Congress was that our constituents have asked for regulatory relief and consumer protection and economic growth, and we stand ready to deliver it.

We and our neighbors have noticed that many of our community financial institutions have closed their doors over the last decade. In fact, we have seen almost no new community financial institutions chartered or new branches being opened over the last few years.

These financial institutions, of all sizes and forms, provide critical services in our communities. They help businesses manage operations, help entrepreneurs get funding to start their businesses, help families buy a home, help all of us save for our kids' educations, and help us deal with financial emergencies.

Community financial institutions are the pillars of towns and communities across America, particularly in rural States like my own, Idaho. They have certain advantages compared with their larger counterparts, operating with an understanding and history of their customers and, therefore, a willingness to be flexible.

Unfortunately, increased regulatory burdens and one-size-fits-all regulations have limited their ability to help customers. The operating landscape of these institutions has changed dramatically over the last few years, and community banks and credit unions across the country have struggled to keep up with the ever-increasing regulatory compliance and examiner demands coming out of Washington.

I regularly hear from small banks and credit unions in Idaho about how one-size-fits-all regulatory approaches are impacting their businesses and product offerings and hindering their ability to serve their communities.

For example, Koreen Dursteler from the Bank of Commerce in Idaho Falls, a small bank with just over $1 billion in assets, has written about the avalanche of regulation over the past 8 to 10 years. Due to excessive regulations related to qualified mortgage loans and the cost of hiring extra compliance staff to help keep up with additional regulation, her bank has had to stop offering consumer mortgages and real estate loans. That is a big deal. This is not an isolated incident. I hear stories like that all the time.

Another example: Val Brooks works at Simplot Employees Credit Union, which serves Canyon County, ID. She noted that Simplot has long been proud to serve this area, where some folks come from lower income households and may be underserved. Simplot worked to obtain the necessary education, compliance certification, and licensing standards to better serve its customers and the community. However, after the CFPB increased already burdensome mortgage regulations, such as the qualified mortgage and HMDA, Simplot credit union had to make the very difficult business decision to stop offering mortgage loans altogether. It was just too cost prohibitive and resource-draining.

When these small financial institutions are not able to offer certain products within the communities they serve, it is a direct hit to the citizens of Idaho and to all of our States.

To be absolutely clear, it is not that folks are against all regulation, but rather, to the people outside of Washington, it seems as if regulatory changes are made without much thought as to how they will truly affect customers and financial providers.

As policymakers, we have a responsibility to diligently and frequently study the state of our economy, our regulatory framework, and how these things are impacting our communities and citizens, including people's access to financial services.

We must encourage regulations that not only ensure proper behavior and safety for our markets but also are tailored appropriately to the size and risk type that is being regulated. This means making sure the burden on financial institutions is not so large that consumers, businesses, and our communities are deprived of financial services and suffer as a result.

This has been an important issue to Members on both sides of the aisle. Congress has held numerous hearings in prior years exploring many of these issues, including a series of hearings in the Banking Committee in 2015. Then, in March of last year, the Banking Committee issued a request for legislative proposals that would promote economic growth. We held bipartisan hearings and briefings and meetings with stakeholders across the spectrum, vetting potential ideas for right- sizing the regulatory dynamics. We began the process by holding a hearing on the role of financial companies in fostering economic growth, which included former regulators, stakeholders, and the chief economist of the AFL-CIO.

At our next two hearings, we examined proposals that would tailor existing laws and regulations to ensure that they are proportionate and appropriate for small financial institutions and midsized regional banks. Then, in June, the financial regulators provided feedback on their Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or EGRPRA, report and the proposals discussed in previous hearings. As a result of this process, we introduced the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which is now S. 2155.

I repeat that often there are those who say we are dismantling the regulatory system. This legislation focuses on the smallest financial institutions in our country. The legislative system that was put into place was marketed as being aimed at Wall Street excesses, but I held a townhall meeting when we were debating this legislation on Main Street in Boise, ID, and said then that although the justification for some of these regulations was focused on Wall Street, the crosshairs were on Main Street. Unfortunately, that has turned out to be all too true. Large banks have profited tremendously in the last 6 to 10 years. Small banks and credit unions have suffered dramatically. We have lost many of our banks and credit unions across this country. As I indicated earlier, very few new ones have started up because they simply cannot meet the compliance burdens of being required to meet regulatory requirements that are designed, in the first instance, for huge banks.

What we need is a regulatory system that recognizes there is a difference between a community bank or a credit union in a small community and a megabank on Wall Street that is doing its business globally. We need to have our regulatory system tailored so the risk posed by a particular financial institution is taken into consideration in the regulations applied. That is what this legislation seeks to accomplish. Like I said at the outset, I am very glad we have had broad support for this.

I would like to take a minute and go over some of the specific provisions in the bill. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act is aimed at rightsizing regulation for financial institutions, including community banks and credit unions, making it easier for consumers to get mortgages and to obtain credit.

As I have often said, the real victims of what I am talking about are not really the community banks and the credit unions but the people, the small businesses--those who need to have access to credit and need to have the ability to get a loan to purchase a house or to start a small business or to expand a small business or other important needs.

This bill also increases important consumer protections for veterans, for 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 I frequently hear about from the financial institutions in Idaho. Community banks and credit unions are simple institutions focused on relationship lending and have a special relationship providing credit to traditionally underserved and rural communities where it may be harder to access banking products and services or to get a loan.

Dodd-Frank instituted numerous new mortgage rules and complex capital requirements on community banks and credit unions that have hindered consumers' access to mortgage credit and lending more broadly. On July 20, 2016, the American Action Forum attempted to estimate the number of paperwork hours and final costs associated with the Dodd-Frank rules. In total, the forum estimated that the bill had imposed more than $36 billion in final rule costs and 73 million paperwork hours as of July 2016.

To put those figures into perspective, the costs are nearly $112 per person, or $310 per household. Additionally, it would take 36,950 employees working full time to complete a single year of the law's paperwork based on agency calculations.

Our bill is focused on providing meaningful relief to community banks and credit unions, helping them to prudently lend to consumers, home buyers, and small businesses.

I have more I want to say. I want to take a brief break right now, and I will come back in a few minutes.

At this point, I yield back my time until I return.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have polled the committee, and on behalf of the committee, I withdraw the committee-reported amendments.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2152.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.