Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week, we will complete work on an important bipartisan bill. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, who is chairman of the Banking Committee, they passed it out of the Banking Committee, and now it is time for us to do our job and pass it out of the Senate. Last week, we voted to proceed, and we will vote to pass it out of the Senate in the next few days.
Senator Crapo explained why this work is so important. Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010--as we all recall, after the great recession of 2008, when Wall Street melted down together with our financial institutions, there were reform efforts undertaken known as Dodd-Frank--Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank--which imposed regulatory requirements on banks large and small. The problem is, the small community banks--the ones that are disproportionately harmed by this overregulation--weren't the cause of the great recession, the financial meltdown of 2010 and 2009, but they are the collateral damage. What has happened is, there has been a lot of consolidation. Many small community banks and credit unions have simply had to close or been consolidated with other larger banks and institutions. It has taken a toll on our economy, and it has taken a toll on our communities across the country. What happens is, these community banks have less money to loan because they have had to use the money they would loan to hire more people to help them comply with all the unnecessary redtape because of the Dodd-Frank overregulation. Some have had to basically defer that sort of investment in their communities and others have had to shutter completely because of the financial burden.
The second-order effect is, some people don't have access to capital; that is, to loans they need. They can't get credit they need in order to start a small business, grow an existing business, or even get a mortgage to buy their first home.
Let's be clear, though, about which financial institutions this bill is tailored toward helping. It is small community banks, midsized regional ones, as well as credit unions. The bill we are considering somehow does not exempt large banks from those regulations, and saying it does, which some have said, doesn't make it so. It is a claim too eagerly peddled by those who want to maintain the status quo, to the detriment of our smaller communities and small businesses. Large banks are still subject to measures designed to protect the stability of the overall economy, like rigorous stress testing.
After all, this bill is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. What it actually does is rightsize those regulations. It does this by providing targeted exemptions from risk-weighted capital requirements, for example, and the Volcker rule. It also provides a qualified mortgage safe harbor for small banks and raises the SIFI threshold so community banks are not lumped into the same overall category as giant financial institutions operating on Wall Street.
The majority leader recently said: ``In an era of online banking and multinational corporations, smaller institutions remain uniquely able to build community connections,'' and that is important to our civic fabric as well as the economies in rural and smalltown America.
Based on research, community banks provide more than half of all small business loans. That could translate into small banks getting to know their customers on a personal level and then extending credit to entrepreneurs and families who might not have access otherwise.
That is certainly the situation in parts of my State, the State of Texas. I have heard from banks and communities there that are more than ready to finally be freed of the shackles of Dodd-Frank.
As the chief executive officer of the Independent Bankers Association of Texas put it, ``Congress holds the key to unchain community banks from the burden pushing them toward consolidation''--in other words, mergers, forcing them to become big banks, which seems to me to be an odd way to deal with this problem, to be sure, or putting them out of business altogether.
In the IBAT's view--Independent Bankers Association of Texas--rules meant to curb the abuses of banks deemed too big to fail have instead trickled down to harm their much smaller counterparts. Because of this effect, in essence, community banks have become too small to survive as mergers and acquisitions have occurred all over the map.
Independent bankers have reported that since 2009, Texas has lost nearly one-third of its banks--one-third of its banks. They have said that based on Federal data on rural counties, approximately one-third don't have a local credit union or bank at all. This bill addresses that situation. It enjoys wide bipartisan support, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting passage before the end of the week. Fix NICS Bill
Madam President, on another matter, I want to emphasize another point and talk about a new milestone reached and announce some good news.
We have now reached 64 total cosponsors for a bill I have introduced with the junior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, called the Fix NICS, which is the background check reform bill we cosponsored together.
In an institution like this, during polarized times, it is pretty remarkable that you have 64 Senators--32 Democrats and 32 Republicans-- coming together and saying: Yes, we have a problem, and, yes, we want to work together to fix it.
This is the kind of legislation the Nation has been waiting for, as people continue to be frustrated, frightened, and depressed by random acts of violence that have broken out in and around some of our churches, our cities, and our schools. I am talking about shootings like those that occurred at Sutherland Springs, TX, outside of San Antonio, in Las Vegas, and, of course, Parkland, FL. With Fix NICS, we are saying the status quo is not acceptable.
I am happy to hear my friend the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, say there are other things he and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do. I would just quote to him some ancient wisdom; that ``the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.'' We ought to take that first step and do what we can do today and do what is achievable in order to make our communities safer.
I have talked about it before, but if the background check system had been working the way Congress intended, the shooter who murdered 26 people as they worshiped on Sunday morning in Sutherland Springs, outside of San Antonio, and injured 20 more would not have been able to legally purchase firearms because the background check system would have reflected the fact that he was a convicted felon, he had been convicted of domestic violence, and he had been in a mental institution. All three of those things are disqualifiers from being able to legally purchase firearms under current law, but if the background system isn't uploaded with the appropriate information for the FBI to maintain, then those convictions will never be discovered, and someone can merely lie their way into purchasing firearms and committing atrocities like we saw in Sutherland Springs.
Fix NICS is designed to make sure convicted felons can't get access to firearms because, under current law, they are disallowed from doing so. It is designed to make sure people who commit domestic violence can't buy a firearm because they are currently prohibited by law from doing so. It is designed to make sure people who are dishonorably discharged from the military can't legally get a firearm because the current law prohibits them from doing so.
Sometimes criminals with domestic abuse convictions, records of mental illness, and violent erratic behavior slip through the cracks and get their hands on guns, despite what the law already prohibits. That is why it is so important for us to pass this legislation now-- again, with 64 cosponsors of the legislation, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
The effectiveness of doing this sort of background check system has been confirmed by academic research. A recent study by RAND Corporation found evidence that dealer background checks may decrease firearm homicides by as much as 20 percent or more. In other words, it saves lives. One specific part of that study further suggested that enforcing background checks for felony records may have a similar diminishing effect. In other words, enforcement matters, and enforcement is what we are trying to ensure.
We have learned from Sutherland Springs that the NICS system is not operating as Congress intended and that the military, in this instance, was not uploading certain records, but they are not alone. Recent news reports out of places like Ohio have shown it is often the case at the State level as well. We know, a few years back, the shooter at Virginia Tech, near Washington, DC, had been adjudicated mentally ill by the State of Virginia, but the State had never uploaded that information on the background check system, so he was able to purchase a firearm.
This bill will save lives. I know my friend the Democratic leader, the minority leader, has said: Well, it is not enough, but if it saves lives, isn't it a good start? I am grateful to him for cosponsoring the legislation. You couldn't tell he cosponsored the legislation by his comments here, acting like this is somehow not a very important step, but it is because it will save lives.
This bill has the backing of the President as well, whom I have spoken to personally, and the minority and majority leaders in the Senate and is supported by gun groups across the spectrum from--yes, the National Rifle Association but also Everytown for Gun Safety. They are at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum when it comes to the Second Amendment. It is not just them. It is others like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Sheriffs' Association.
It really is remarkable when you have groups with such widely divergent views, when it comes to the Second Amendment, come together and say: Well, this is where we can find common ground. This is where we can actually do something. That is reflected in the 64 bipartisan cosponsors we have for the bill.
The bill would do this: First, it would require Federal agencies and States to produce NICS implementation plans, in other words, to fix what is broken, including measures to verify the accuracy of the records.
It would hold Federal agencies accountable if they fail to upload the relevant information.
I think it is accurate information, but I have heard that after the shooting in Sutherland Springs, the military has now gone back and uploaded 4,000 additional records into the NICS background check system that weren't previously loaded. Those are 4,000 people now in the system who, if they attempted to buy a firearm legally through a gun store or Federal licensed firearm dealer, would not be able to do so because there would be a hit on the FBI background check system.
I think if we provided similar incentives to the States, we would see a similar increase in compliance and public safety continue to be enhanced.
This bill would reward States that comply with their NICS implementation plan through Federal grants incentives. It would reauthorize and improve law enforcement programs to help State governments share relevant criminal record information. Let's not forget, this is not just a Federal problem.
Finally, the bill would provide important technical assistance to Federal agencies and States that are working to comply with NICS record-sharing requirements.
We have all the support we need. What we need is a vote. I know that despite the minority leader's comments here today, he does not oppose this bill. He says it is merely not enough, but why can't we pass this bill that we all agree on and then build from there? I am not afraid of having any debate or any vote on any matter related to the Second Amendment. That is why our constituents sent us here, to debate and to vote and to be held accountable for those votes.
I know there is pressure from those who want more controversial measures to be added, but frankly they are ones that can't pass the Senate, much less the House, or be signed into the law. I would hope we focus--focus our attention on what is achievable, what is bipartisan, what brings people together at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum and pass the Fix NICS bill. Again, NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It will improve our background check system and in the process save lives.
If we did nothing else--and I am not advocating that for a moment, but if we did nothing else in this space other than pass this background check reform system, we would save lives. I don't know why that is not compelling enough to everyone to actually get it done. I hope it is, and I hope we do so without further delay.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source