Ron Paul Statement on the Credit Union Membership Access Act
(J. Bradley Jansen was Ron Paul’s legislative staffer for these issues at this time)
STATEMENT OF REP. RON PAUL
ON H.R. 1151
THE CREDIT UNION MEMBERSHIP ACCESS ACT
Since I strongly support the expansion of the field of membership for credit unions and was the first one in this congress to introduce multiple common bonds for credit unions in the Financial Freedom Act, H.R. 1121, I am happy to speak in support of the passage of H.R. 1151 here today. Having argued forcefully against the imposition of new regulations imposed upon credit unions, I congratulate the senate for not increasing the regulatory burden on credit unions in an attempt to “level the playing field” with banks and other financial institutions.
A better approach is to lead the congress towards lower taxes and less regulation–on credit unions, banks and other financial institutions. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the senate, takes us one step in the right direction of less government regulation restricting individual choice. We must continue on the path of fewer regulations and lower taxes.
These regulations add to the costs of operations of financial institutions. This cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher interest rates and additional fees. These regulations impose a disproportionate burden on smaller institutions, stifles the possibility of new entrants into the financial sector, and contributes to a consolidation and fewer market participants of the industry. Consumers need additional choices, not congressionally-imposed limits on choices.
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry; it adds, “The total cost of all regulations can only be larger…The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.
Smaller banks face the highest compliance cost in relation to total assets, equity capital and net income before taxes, reveals Regulatory Burden: The Cost to Community Banks, a study prepared for the Independent Bankers Association of America by Grant Thornton, January 1993. For each $1 million in assets, banks under $30 million in assets incur almost three times the compliance cost of banks between $30-65 million in assets. This regulation almost quadruples costs on smaller institutions to almost four times when compared to banks over $65 million in assets. These findings are consistent for both equity capital and net income measurements, according to the report.
We need to work together now to reduce the regulatory burden on all financial institutions. The IBAA study identifies the Community Reinvestment Act as the most burdensome regulation with the estimated cost of complying with CRA exceeding the next most burdensome regulation by approximately $448 million or 77%. Respondents to the IBAA study rated the CRA as the least beneficial and useful of the thirteen regulatory areas surveyed. We need to reduce the most costly, and least beneficial and useful regulation on the banks.
Let’s all work together now, credit unions, banks and other financial institutions, to reduce their regulatory burden. Credit unions have demonstrated that fewer regulations contribute to lower costs passed on to consumers and greater consumer choice. Let’s extend that model for banks and other financial institutions.