Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to reflect on the landmark legislation that this body passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last week. It isn't every day that folks in Congress can work together in a bipartisan way to get something done that will benefit Main Streets across rural America, but that is exactly what we did last week. I am very proud of that effort.

I say a big thank-you to the chairman of the Banking Committee, Chairman Crapo, for the work he has done, his ability to listen, his commonsense perspective, and his patience. It would not have happened without those qualities that Chairman Crapo exhibited.

I also want to single out three Senators who worked very hard on this bill. There are a number of others who did, too, but I am just going to mention Senators Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Warner. Those folks did yeoman's work in bringing into view the challenges that our banking industry has out there, coming up with solutions for those challenges, and coming up with consumer protections to put into this bill to move it forward. There were many others. I think there were 17 or 18 cosponsors on the Democratic side of the aisle, but I say a special thank you to Senators Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Warner for their advocacy, input, knowledge, expertise, and their ability to work to get things done.

People ask me: Senator Tester, why did you write this bill? Well, I was a part of the folks who wrote this bill for good reason. I remember very well that during the financial crisis, then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson came in--it was in 2008, I believe--and said that we were on the cusp of a financial meltdown in this country. I remember some of the free and irresponsible activities that were done in the financial system. I remember bringing regulators in front of the Banking Committee and ripping them up one side and down the other as to why we had gotten into this situation. In the end, we came up with a bill called Dodd-Frank.

Dodd-Frank was put together after a lot of public input and a lot of hearings, and it was put into effect really to regulate the folks who got us into the situation we were in. At that moment in time, we had banks that were too big to fail, folks who were doing no-doc or low-doc loans, and foreclosures happening everywhere. We put in the regulation.

One of the things we heard when we put in the Dodd-Frank regulation was that it was a big bill and that it was going to need to be changed, adapted--however you want to put it--moving forward. I believe that bill was passed in 2009. Here we are 8 or 9 years later, and we look at Dodd-Frank and see that in some cases, it has done exactly as was intended, especially for the larger banks. Some could argue that there is more work to be done there.

One of the negative things that resulted from the Dodd-Frank regulation was that some of that regulation bled down onto our local community banks and credit unions. This is particularly concerning to me because I come from a very rural part of this country. It is a small town where, when my grandfather homesteaded, they had all sorts of options when they marketed their grain. In the 1940s and 1950s, when my folks took over in my small town, I believe there were five grain elevators there. When Sharla and I took over in the late 1970s, there were three. Today, there is one.

You ask, why does that have anything to do with the banking industry, Jon? Well, it is consolidation. And the consolidation didn't happen overnight; it took decades. You end up with less competition in the marketplace when it comes to selling your grains.

That same thing could be adapted to what has gone on in our community banks over the last 8 or 9 years, where they have been bought up by bigger banks. The bigger banks will tell you that they have to get bigger to be able to compete with the regulations put on them. So they were bought up, and the same thing will extrapolate out over time.

Those folks who say: Well, this isn't necessary because banks are making a lot of money--look, banks may be operating today, but they are looking into the future, as any good business does, and they are saying to themselves: Do I really have what it takes to stick around? They can see the writing on the wall, and they are selling out because of it. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this--this will result in less consumer choice and more consolidation, making the bigger banks even bigger and really helping the folks who caused the crisis back in 2008--ultimately, the biggest of the big banks.

We have seen the consolidation at grocery stores, grain elevators, and even bars. The truth is that it isn't all due to one single thing. The consolidation in the financial industry and on the ground isn't due to just regulations. Technology has its impact, and a moving population also has its impact.

As I looked at this 5 years ago, I said: If we don't do something to tweak Dodd-Frank, we are going to end up in a situation where we don't have consumer choice to buy that house or expand that business or start that new business--what entrepreneurs do. So as a policymaker, I thought it was my job to look ahead to the next generation of people who are going to be out there in rural America, whether it is a Main Street small business or a farm or a family who is working for a business. That is why I helped write this bill, because from a rural America perspective, it was the right thing to do, and it was time to do something for the next generation, for our kids and our grandkids, so that they could have the kind of opportunity that, quite frankly, my folks and my grandparents had given to my generation.

I am not the kind of person who will sit back on the sidelines and complain about stuff over a cup of coffee. When we see a problem, my folks taught me to work and try to fix it. I see a problem, and there is little doubt in my mind that if we had not done what we did last week to give some regulatory relief to community banks and credit unions, things would have continued to get worse in rural America. They still may get worse in rural America, but at least we have done what we needed to do in this body to try to change that.

There are some out there who, for whatever reason--and I haven't quite been able to figure it out yet--are spreading misinformation about this bill. Maybe it is just the day we live in. So let me set the record straight about this bill.

This bill does not help the Wall Street banks. It does not. Those who say it does are not correct. This bill does not set us up for another financial crisis. In fact, the authors of the original Dodd-Frank bill, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--both smart guys whom I admire--wrote:

As the authors of the original Dodd-Frank reform law, we want all Montanans to know that the banking bill Senator Tester helped write does not dismantle Dodd-Frank as some people claim. Jon knows Montana and challenges facing rural America. While we did not agree with every part of this bill, it helps local credit unions and community banks across Montana while keeping protections in place that are designed to prevent another financial crisis.

Those are the original authors. That is why it is called Dodd-Frank-- because it is from Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank.

The other thing the bill does not do is it does not leave banks unregulated. There is implication by some out there that this bill deregulates 25 of the 40 largest banks. To me, that implication is that now they are no longer regulated. The fact is, all the banks are highly regulated for safety and soundness. Quite frankly, this does not leave banks unregulated. They still have plenty of regulation to go through.

In conclusion, the bill we passed last week does several things. I believe it is going to increase access to capital, particularly in rural America. I think it makes the regulation fit the risk, while still continuing to crack down on risky behavior. It has great consumer protection components to it. Last and certainly not least, from my perspective, it is good for rural America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source