Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. 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. CRAPO. 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. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. 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. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. 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. CRAPO

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

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

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CRAPO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO

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

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

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. 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. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we are now on the bill, S. 2155. We have offered a bipartisan substitute that reflects the priorities from Members on both sides of the aisle. We are ready to begin the process of voting on further amendments. I have discussed the path forward with the majority leader, and we would like to begin alternating amendments and setting votes on them with limited time agreements. The first two amendments on the Republican side are a Paul amendment to audit the Federal Reserve and a Moran amendment to restructure the management and funding of the CFPB. I understand there are several amendments on the Democratic side, as well, and we are willing to start setting those votes in an alternating fashion. It is my understanding, however, that there are objections on the Democratic side to setting votes at this time, but I hope we can convene tomorrow and start the process of voting on amendments and work together in cooperation to finalize the amendment process.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 8; 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. Finally, I ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2155.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Before the Senator yields to the Senator from Georgia, may I make one comment?

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran, for his kind comments and especially for so clearly explaining the true beneficiaries of this legislation. There is a lot of talk about financial institutions and even small banks and credit unions, but the real beneficiaries are the borrowers. They are the small businesses and the individuals who live in small and rural communities across this country and, frankly, even in some of our larger communities across this country. I thank you for explaining that so well. The first words in the name of this bill are the ``Economic Growth,'' then ``Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Bill.'' I would like to turn to Senator Donnelly from Indiana--another one of the giants in terms of sticking to it and helping us get this important legislation drafted and moved to the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. Earlier in my remarks, I said that this bill had been years in the making, and Senator Tester is one of those who have been involved the entire time, helping us to get here, as are Senator Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Warner, who is here--he had to step out for just a second--and Senator Heitkamp, who was here earlier. I now want to turn to one of our colleagues on the Republican side, Senator Moran from Kansas, who also is one of those who have been with us for years, working to make sure we get this critically needed legislation to the floor. Senator Moran.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am going to be joined today by some of my colleagues from the Banking Committee who are also supporters of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. We rise today to speak about this bipartisan legislation, which advanced out of the committee last year by a vote of 16 to 7, a bipartisan vote. The primary purpose of this legislation is to make targeted changes to simplify and improve the regulatory regime for community banks, credit unions, midsized banks, and regional banks to promote economic growth. Many of us represent rural States where community banks and credit unions are the primary providers of credit and financial services. These institutions hold a competitive advantage over their larger counterparts, operating with a relationship-based knowledge of their customers and an understanding of their unique needs. They are decidedly disadvantaged when it comes to keeping up with the ever- increasing compliance and examiner demands coming out of Washington. Our bill offers much needed reforms that will reduce unnecessary burdens on smaller financial institutions so that they can use more of their capital serving customers rather than complying with Federal regulations that were never intended for them. It also adds protections against fraud and identity theft for consumers, veterans, senior citizens, and others, as well as for those falling on hard financial times. This bill is the product of robust, bipartisan negotiation. It was years in the making. It is the outgrowth of feedback and input garnered from a process we initiated in the Banking Committee across all stakeholders in America, as well as from previous meetings, briefings, and many conversations and negotiations among the members. I see Senator Heitkamp is here, and I am going to ask her to talk about this process, how we reached this point today, and what it means for North Dakotans. Senator Heitkamp.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, and to urge my colleagues to support its passage. In just a few minutes, we will have the first vote to vote on cloture to bring this bill to the floor, cloture on the motion to proceed--a very critical vote. Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support bringing this bill forward to the floor for a full debate and vote. First, let me thank each of the cosponsors of this bill, including the many members of the Banking Committee, for their interest and involvement in the many discussions, hearings, personal negotiations, and conversations we have had to get to this point. Originally introduced by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats, this package of commonsense reforms now has 26 Senate cosponsors, including 16 members of the Banking Committee. Community banks and credit unions across the country have long struggled to keep up with ever-increasing regulatory compliance and examiner demands coming out of Washington. In local economies, this places a strain on small businesses looking to open or to grow. In fact, when the Dodd-Frank legislation was initially proposed and we were debating it on the floor of this Senate, I held a news conference in Idaho, on Main Street in one of our cities. I said that this bill was not targeted at Wall Street, as it was being marketed; instead, it was being targeted at Main Street--our small financial institutions and communities. That has turned out to be exactly the case. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, our big banks have profited wonderfully, but our small banks, our small financial institutions-- credit unions and community banks--have suffered terribly. S. 2155 is aimed at right-sizing the regulation for financial institutions, primarily community banks and credit unions, which makes it easier for consumers to get mortgages or obtain credit. It also increases important consumer protections for veterans, senior citizens, victims of fraud, and those who fall on tough financial times. Congress has held numerous hearings in prior years exploring many of these issues, and the product before us today is the result of a years- long process and careful vetting. This bill has received widespread support from commentators, regulators, businesses, and institutions representing millions of hard- working Americans and consumers, including over 10,000 community bankers, more than 100 million credit union consumer members, and thousands of small business owners and entrepreneurs, among others. The reforms in this bipartisan bill help tailor the current regulatory landscape, while ensuring safety and soundness and relieving the burden on American businesses that are unfairly being treated like the largest companies in our economy. The passage of this legislation holds real promise for local economies across America, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.