Home > Congressional Record > April 17, 2018 > Senate Section > Page S2200

April 17, 2018 - Issue: Vol. 164, No. 62 — Daily Edition115th Congress (2017 - 2018) - 2nd Session

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 62
(Senate - April 17, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S2200-S2211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU
OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 57) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and
Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. 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

[[Page S2201]]

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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Financial

Services Association,

Washington, DC, April 13, 2018.
Dear Senator: The American Financial Services Association
(AFSA) writes to express our strong support for S.J. Res. 57,
which would rescind the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's (CFPB) 2013 vehicle finance guidance. The guidance
is harmful to American consumers and businesses, and the CFPB
acted without accountability in its issuance of the guidance.
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.
The Bureau issued the guidance without any public comment,
consultation with CFPB's sister agencies, or transparency.
The CFPB issued the policy, which directed fundamental market
changes, without a transparent rulemaking process to assess
the impact on consumers.
In the 114th Congress, the House overwhelming approved H.R.
1737, the ``Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance
Act,'' a bill rejecting the vehicle finance guidance similar
to S.J. Res 57. The legislation passed the House by a
bipartisan vote of 332-96, including 88 Democrats.
S.J. Res. 57 is a narrow resolution that preserves fair
lending protections. It does not hinder enforcement of fair
lending laws or regulations, which AFSA and its members
strongly support. In fact, even the House Financial Services
Committee minority report accompanying H.R. 1737 stated that,
``H.R. 1737 does not alter regulated entities' obligations
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) or the CFPB's
examination or enforcement activity pursuant to ECOA.''
Proponents of S.J. Res. 57 take fair credit laws very
seriously, and the resolution protects these laws and their
enforcement to safeguard equal opportunity in vehicle
financing.
Please lend your support S.J. Res. 57, both as a cosponsor
and an affirmative vote on the Senate floor. If you need more
information, please contact me.
Sincerely,

Bill Himpler,

Executive Vice President,
American Financial Services Association.
____

National Automotive

Dealers Association,

Tysons, VA, April 13, 2018.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer: On behalf of
America's 16,500 franchised new car and truck dealers and the
1.1 million people they employ, I am writing in strong
support of S.J. Res. 57, a joint resolution providing for
Congressional disapproval of the rule by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) relating to indirect auto
lending. Despite Congress exempting

[[Page S2202]]

most auto dealers from the CFPB's jurisdiction under Section
1029 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, the CFPB's rule, issued as ``guidance,''
operates to reduce market competition and take away a
consumer's ability to receive a discounted auto loan in the
showroom. Access to affordable credit is essential to
consumers, and the ability of a dealer to discount credit is
often necessary to meet auto buyers' needs.
S.J. Res. 57 is a narrowly-tailored joint resolution that
does not amend or change any fair credit law or regulation or
impair their enforcement. The legislation is a measured
response to the CFPB's attempt to regulate the $1.1 trillion
auto financing market, avoid congressional scrutiny by
issuing ``guidance,'' and impose a new policy without
necessary procedural safeguards.
Congress has considered this issue thoroughly during the
past several years through oversight and legislative action.
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
raised the matter during two CFPB oversight hearings.
Moreover, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 332-96,
including 88 Democrats, in 2015 the House passed H.R. 1737,
the ``Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act,''
which would have rescinded the CFPB auto finance guidance.
The 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.
In particular:
The rule/guidance was issued without any prior notice,
opportunity for public comment, or consultation with the
federal agencies Congress authorized to regulate dealers.
Indirect auto lenders were pressured by the rule/guidance
to eliminate a consumer's ability to receive a discount on
auto credit by a dealer, which would have fundamentally
altered the entire auto finance market. This new policy would
have limited market competition, raised credit costs for auto
buyers, and thereby pushed some marginally creditworthy
borrowers out of the credit market. The CFPB admitted to the
Senate that it did not analyze the impact of the rule/
guidance on consumers.
Despite Congress' clear determination in Dodd-Frank to
place regulatory oversight of auto retailers with the Federal
Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission and Department of
Justice (DOJ), the rule/guidance assumed the CFPB could
unilaterally assert jurisdiction over dealer discounts and
the manner of dealer compensation for auto credit.
The rule/guidance was based on a flawed method for
identifying the background of consumers that relied solely on
a borrower's zip code and last name. A non-partisan study of
the CFPB's policy found a 41 percent error rate for
classifying the background of a significant group of
consumers, and even the CFPB's own review revealed a 20
percent error rate for the same group. (This non-partisan
study was never rebutted by the CFPB.)
The rule/guidance failed to account for legitimate business
factors that can affect finance rates (such as discounting a
rate due to the presence of a competing offer or to
accommodate a consumer's monthly budget constraint) to ensure
that borrowers being compared are similarly situated.
The auto industry takes fair credit laws very seriously and
strongly condemns discrimination. In furtherance of this
commitment, NADA, joined by the other national dealer
associations, developed and continues to promote a voluntary
fair-credit compliance program, based on an effective DOJ
model that preserves consumer discounts on credit for
legitimate business reasons. Unfortunately, the CFPB,
refusing to work with the Federal regulators that have
jurisdiction over dealers, failed to adopt the DOJ-based fair
credit alternative as an appropriate method to mitigate fair
credit risks in indirect auto lending.
Enactment of S.J. Res. 57 is important to keep auto loans
affordable and accessible for consumers. America's franchised
auto dealers urge a ``Yes'' vote on S.J. Res. 57 should it be
considered by the Senate. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Peter K. Welch,
President and CEO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Bankers Association,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2018.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer:
On behalf of the members of the American Bankers Association
(ABA), I write to express our support for S. J. Res. 57, a
resolution to disapprove BCFP Bulletin No. 2013-02,
``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act'' (Bulletin).
According to the statements of the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (Bureau) at the time of issue, the
Bulletin was to provide lenders with fair lending compliance
``guidance'' in situations when lenders permit automobile
dealers flexibility to set automobile loan interest rates. In
practice, however, the Bulletin was applied as far more than
guidance, asserting with regulatory effect, highly
controversial legal theories and methodologies to allege that
banks and finance companies that purchase motor vehicle
installment sales contracts may be liable under the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) for purported, but
undemonstrated racial disparities in the interest rates that
the automobile dealers charged consumers.
ABA strongly believes that every automobile customer
deserves to be treated fairly, and that there is no room for
illegal discrimination of any kind in automobile financing.
However, the Bulletin was issued without the opportunity for
public comment on its legal underpinnings, critical review of
its assumption and bases, and its impact on consumer access
to convenient and affordable credit.
The regulatory and enforcement uncertainty caused by this
Guidance has caused many banks to exit or curtail their
indirect auto lending, which limits consumer choice and
increases the cost of credit.
ABA urges the Senate to adopt S.J. Res. 57.
Sincerely,
James C. Ballentine.
____

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2018.
To Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce urges you to support S.J. Res. 57, a Congressional
Review Act resolution to undo the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection's action on indirect auto lending. The
Chamber will consider including votes on, or in relation to,
S.J. Res. 57 in our How They Voted scorecard.
In 2013, the Bureau issued a ``Bulletin'' that imposed new
requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to
address purported discrimination. The Bulletin established
that indirect lenders--firms that are never face-to-face with
borrowers and only purchase contracts after-the-fact from
auto dealers--could be liable for discrimination.
The Chamber abhors discrimination in all its forms,
including in the financial service and auto lending sectors.
However, the Bureau provided little concrete evidence of
problems that the Bulletin was intended to address. In fact,
internal documents demonstrate that even Bureau staff found
the data and methodology intended to support the rule
``unconvincing.''
We thank Senator Moran and Senator Toomey for their
leadership to resolve this overreach by the Bureau and for
engaging the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which
determined on December 5, 2017, that the Bulletin is in fact
a ``rule'' for purposes of the Congressional Review Act.
Moreover, we applaud the work of the House Financial
Services Committee, which released three reports on the
topic.
The Chamber believes the Bureau--like all other federal
agencies--should follow the Administrative Procedure Act when
issuing guidance and promulgating regulations. Agency actions
should be based on clear legislative authority, solid data,
and proper public input. That is why the Chamber strongly
supports the Portman-Heitkamp ``Regulatory Accountability
Act,'' which would modernize the rulemaking and guidance
processes for the first time since 1946.
The Chamber urges you to reject the Bureau's Bulletin and
to support S.J. Res. 57.
Sincerely,

Jack Howard,

Senior Vice President,
Congressional and Public Affairs.
____

Independent Community

Bankers of American,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2018.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer:
On behalf of the nearly 5,700 community banks represented by
ICBA, I write today to urge all members of the Senate to
support S.J. Res. 57, a joint resolution under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran
(R-Kan.) to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's (CFPB) 2013 auto finance guidance set forth in CFPB
Bulletin 2013-02, titled ``Indirect Auto Lending and
Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity'' (Bulletin).
S.J. Res. 57 follows the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's (GAO's) determination that the ``guidance'' outlined
in the Bulletin is a ``rule'' subject to CRA. Sen. Pat Toomey
(R-Pa.) requested that GAO determine whether the Bulletin was
subject to CRA. 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. For this reason,
ICBA supports this effort to overturn this harmful guidance
administered by the CFPB.
ICBA and America's community banks thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Camden R. Fine,
President & CEO.

[[Page S2203]]

____
NADA, Auto Alliance, American Financial Services
Association, The National RV Dealers Association,
National Independent Automotive Dealers Association,
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, American
International Automotive Dealers, National Auto Auction
Association, Motorcycle Industry Council.
April 16, 2018.
Dear Senator: We, the undersigned organizations which
represent businesses that make, sell, finance, auction and
service vehicles are writing to express our strong support
for S.J. Res. 57, a joint resolution to disapprove the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) 2013 auto
finance guidance. The CFPB guidance pressures indirect auto
lenders to limit a consumer's ability to receive a discounted
auto loan from a dealer, resulting in less competition,
higher financing rates, and loss of credit access for many
vehicle buyers.
Access to affordable credit, including a dealer's ability
to discount credit, is essential to meet the transportation
needs of our customers. Since more than 80 percent of vehicle
purchases are financed, adequate retail credit is vital to
facilitate vehicle sales. The current system benefits
consumers as dealers' access to multiple lending institutions
frequently allows dealers to help consumers, including the
marginally credit worthy who often have limited options,
secure financing at competitive interest rates.
The CFPB auto lending policy, issued through a guidance,
directed fundamental market changes without a transparent
rulemaking process to assess the impact on consumers. This
guidance was issued without any public comment, consultation
with CFPB's sister agencies (including those that Congress
authorized to regulate auto dealers), or transparency.
Indeed, by the CFPB's own admission, the agency did not study
the impact of its guidance on consumers.
This controversial guidance also enabled the agency to
skirt Congress' express prohibition on its exercise of
authority over auto, recreational vehicle, and motorcycle
retailers engaged in indirect lending, (Sec. 1029(a) of Dodd-
Frank). Under the Dodd-Frank law dealers continue to be
regulated by that Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade
Commission and Department of Justice, as well as rigorous
state laws and regulations.
The auto industry takes fair credit laws extremely
seriously and has proactively promoted a comprehensive
compliance program to enhance fair credit lending. Under the
Department of Justice (DOJ) modeled program, a dealer can
reduce the consumer's APR by documenting one of seven
``legitimate business reasons'' identified by the DOJ as a
legitimate reason for a dealer to discount credit. Legitimate
business reasons include ``meeting or beating'' a competitive
offer that is available to the customer from another dealer
or lender. Preserving this vigorously competitive market for
vehicle financing lowers the cost of auto credit for
consumers across the board. When Congress created the CFPB,
surely it did not intend the agency to use its power to stop
vehicle retailers from offering consumers discounts.
In a rejection of the auto finance guidance, last Congress
the House overwhelming approved a bill similar to S.J. Res.
57, H.R. 1737, the ``Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing
Guidance Act.'' H.R. 1737, which would have rescinded the
guidance, passed by a bipartisan vote of 332-96, including 88
Democrats (November 18, 2015).
Despite the House's overwhelmingly bipartisan approval of
the legislation and additional bipartisan efforts in the
Senate to seek a resolution on this issue, the CFPB rebuffed
extensive industry efforts to work together to fashion a
solution that would preserve discounted auto loans by dealers
within the parameters of the DOJ-based model. In addition,
the CFPB continued to pressure finance sources to limit a
dealer's ability to discount credit based on a deeply flawed
method for measuring lender compliance with fair lending
laws.
S.J. Res. 57 is narrow and purely a process resolution that
preserves fair lending protections and does not hinder
enforcement of fair lending laws or regulations. In fact,
even the House Financial Services Committee minority report
accompanying H.R. 1737 stated that ``H.R. 1737 does not alter
regulated entities' obligations under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA) or the CFPB's examination or
enforcement activity pursuant to ECOA.'' Proponents of S.J.
Res. 57 take fair credit laws very seriously, and this joint
resolution protects these laws and their enforcement to
safeguard equal opportunity in vehicle financing.
Senators should disapprove the auto finance guidance that
operates to eliminate dealer discounts, threatens to raise
credit costs and push marginally creditworthy consumers out
of the vehicle financing market, and harms the vehicle
industry and its associated U.S. jobs. Vehicle sales play an
important role in the economy, as they constitute almost 20
percent of all retail spending in the U.S. Nationwide the
vehicle industry provides jobs for more than 7 million
workers and their families. It is in the best interest of
consumers, dealers, and vehicle manufacturers to keep vehicle
financing competitive and affordable.
Keeping auto financing competitive and affordable is not
only warranted, it is essential for the vehicle industry and
its customers. That is why similar legislation easily passed
the House, and why the Senate should pass S.J. Res. 57.

Mr. CRAPO. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am here to lend my support to a measure
that I have had the honor of working on with the Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, and I have worked side by side with the
chairman of the Banking Committee--of which I am a member--the Senator
from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. I very much appreciate the leadership that both
of those individuals and my other colleagues have provided over a long
period of time on this issue.
Dodd-Frank was passed as a result of the concerns that many had
across the country and here in the Congress regarding the financial
challenges that our Nation faced resulting from mortgages that were
sold. It really was a Wall Street crisis that, in so many ways, became
challenging for Main Street, with Main Street having the consequence of
having the difficulties presented to them based upon what happened on
Wall Street, and in so many instances, consumers ended up paying the
price. But as we tried to correct the problem when Dodd-Frank was
passed, it got way beyond the culprits--those who were culpable for
creating the financial crisis in our Nation--and began to penalize
those who had nothing to do with them.
One of the creatures of the passage of Dodd-Frank was the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, and one of the aspects of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau was their effort to regulate indirect auto
lending.
I think the chairman, the Senator from Idaho, did a great job of
explaining this resolution. Today, we have the authority to reject the
decision that was made by the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau, and I
hope my colleagues will join me in doing so. I have introduced this
resolution to accomplish that.
Senator Toomey has made clear by his efforts that this guidance that
was issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is subject to a
CRA, and that is our mission today--to accomplish the passage of that
CRA.
While the chairman was speaking, I jotted down perhaps four or five
points that I would like to make to my colleagues. One is that those
who lend money to someone buying an automobile had nothing to do with
the financial collapse that occurred as a result of the mortgage crisis
in 2007 and 2008.
I think Republicans probably made a mistake--I could take out the
political word ``probably.'' Republicans made a mistake in saying ``We
are going to repeal Dodd-Frank,'' and Democrats responded by saying
``You are never going to touch Dodd-Frank.'' As a result, since 2008,
we have been unable to correct, in a bipartisan way, the problems that
many of us saw with Dodd-Frank. There are those who say ``We are going
to get rid of the entire thing,'' and those who say ``You can't

[[Page S2204]]

touch it.'' Therefore, the consumers--the citizens of this country--
have struggled and been damaged by the consequences of Dodd-Frank.
Today we are dealing with a specific provision, and that is the
indirect automobile lending--a circumstance in which financing is
arranged by someone who sells an automobile in their business to make
the deal work for the consumer who wants to buy the automobile.
I would outline these five points: First of all, this ought to be a
relatively easy decision because automobile dealers are specifically
excluded from the provisions of Dodd-Frank. So, in my view, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had to work its magic to try to
find a way to regulate the financing of automobiles that were arranged
for by the automobile dealer in contravention to the law which says
that automobile dealers are not covered by it.
I was not in the Senate at the time this amendment was offered. It
was offered here in the U.S. Senate by my predecessor, Senator
Brownback, and adopted as a provision in Dodd-Frank. It is very
specific.
I just read the language of the exemption, the exclusion, before I
came on the Senate floor. Again, it says that automobile dealers are
excluded from the provisions of Dodd-Frank. Yet the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau found a way to get around direct law and, in that
sense, the intent of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives
when they passed Dodd-Frank. So just on its face, we ought to decide
that the CRA is worth supporting because we are really reaffirming the
decision that was made when Dodd-Frank was passed.
Second, the process the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau used--
they didn't draft a rule and go through the rulemaking process, and
they didn't put anything out for comment by the industry that would be
affected or by the consumers who may pay more as a result of the
passage or the enactment of this guidance. But they created something
that regulatory bodies often do and tried to provide--the word is
``guidance.'' What they say they are doing is providing direction,
without passing a rule, to those who might be affected by the rule, but
as a result of just using guidance, no input was solicited, no input
therefore could be given, and the Administrative Procedure Act was
avoided.
I remember the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
was in front of the Banking Committee when he was asked: How can this
be? His answer was simply: This is guidance, and the Administrative
Procedure Act doesn't apply. Yet, as we have seen, the GAO has recently
concluded that this is the same outcome, the same result as rulemaking
would be and therefore subject to the CRA.
What that highlights for me is, in two instances already, the CFPB
finagled and created a way to get to an outcome they wanted without
following, in this case, the Administrative Procedure Act and,
secondly, in violation of the statutory prohibition against having
anything to do with automobile dealers. So for those two reasons, we
ought to be opposed to the guidance that was directed to the automobile
dealers and those who lend money at the direction of those automobile
dealers.

The third item I would raise is what this guidance is designed to do
is to prevent discrimination. What they claimed they were doing was to
make certain that interest rates do not differ based upon a person's
race. If that were the desired outcome, I would have no qualms. But
because you can't ask a person's race, there is no way to know. So what
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did was to create a computer
program, an algorithm, in which they guessed what a person's race was
based upon their last name--how it sounds--and, secondly, on their ZIP
Code. Never was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau able to
provide the evidence that anyone had been discriminated against, only
that if you use a computer program and run a bunch of numbers through
it, the algorithm, based upon what a person's name sounds like--which I
guess, in my mind, is discrimination in and of itself--and, secondly,
the ZIP Code--perhaps the same thing could be said about that--
determine what race a person is or was.
So the methods by which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
determined discrimination were flawed. In fact, a bipartisan report
indicated that 41 percent of the determinations were inaccurate, so not
quite half of every time the algorithm guessed what the race of a
borrower was, it was wrong. Yet that apparently was sufficient for the
CFPB to believe they had a basis to determine whether someone was
discriminated against.
I can't imagine that many Americans would find it comforting to know
that only a computer program determines what somebody believes their
race is, again, based upon a hypothetical and not upon actual facts.
Again, the method by which the guidance was used to determine
discrimination was significantly flawed and a process in which I can't
believe many Americans would find comfort.
What I would say, finally, is that elimination of the guidance--
passage of the CRA today--would not do anything to change the
prohibition against discrimination. It is not that if the CRA is
adopted that discrimination now becomes legal; in fact, we all can
agree that discrimination has no place in our society or in our
economy. But the absence of this CFPB guidance does not make
discrimination legal. It does not amend or modify the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act nor does it change regulation B, which allows for
enforcement of that act.
What we are trying to do is correct the mistakes by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau under Dodd-Frank, which says that you can't
deal with automobile dealers, correct the problems that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau created by using an algorithm to determine
discrimination, and at the same time, not do anything to change the
prohibition, the illegality of discriminating against a person based
upon that person's race.
Also, I think we can easily make the case that this kind of guidance,
this effort by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, causes damage
to the consumer, who therefore will not get the benefit of an
appropriate rate of interest because of the fear of this guidance,
which then, ultimately, results in just a standard interest rate for
everyone.
Today we have the opportunity to correct a problem that was created
in contravention of a law that used a flawed method to determine
whether a person was discriminated against and to improve the
circumstances that consumers face at a time in which every dime
matters, so we should see improvement in the opportunities for people
to borrow money and to buy an automobile for the benefit of themselves
and their families.
I hope that my colleagues will join me, as they did on the motion to
proceed, and that this CRA will be adopted over the next day or so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion. This is
my second day in a row being on the opposite side of my friend Senator
Moran and Senator Crapo, too, for that matter, but you have to do what
you have to do.
Over the last year and a half, as we have seen time after time after
time, Republicans in this Congress have made it pretty clear to the
American people whose side they are on. They have used the
Congressional Review Act--something nobody at home really knows about
and something most of us didn't know anything about until we began to
see at the White House these executive retreats every weekend for Wall
Street executives. They have used the Congressional Review Act more
than any other Congress in history to give handouts to big corporations
at the expense of ordinary Americans.
It is not enough for Republican legislators to go to Senator
McConnell's office down the hall and cut deals giving tax cuts to the
richest people in the country and giving tax breaks to General Motors,
which promised that if tax cuts were given to the largest corporations
in America, they were going to raise wages and hire more people.
Well, GM just announced--to its everlasting discredit--hundreds of
layoffs at its Lordstown plant near Youngstown, OH. Hundreds and
hundreds of people were laid off, perhaps permanently. We don't know,
but the signs

[[Page S2205]]

aren't good. At the same time, General Motors in Toledo, because they
make the transmissions for the Chevy Cruze in Youngstown, are laying
people off. And then the Ohio Turnpike from Toledo to Youngstown, this
long Ohio turnpike--one of the centers of the American auto industry--
we will probably see layoffs in the supply chain. Even though they got
a huge tax cut, written in the office down the hall, in Majority Leader
McConnell's office--they got a huge tax cut and lots of money in their
pockets. What do they do? They mostly do corporate buybacks and stock
buybacks. They share this money with their biggest stockholders.

So that is what happened with the tax cut. Now they are giving
another handout to a big corporation at the expense of Americans. It is
bad enough that we are considering this Congressional Review Act piece
of legislation. We are considering a bill that would tell Wall Street
banks and shady lenders that it is OK to discriminate against
borrowers.
Somebody who looks like me can go to a car dealership and get a loan
when they decide they are going to buy a Chevy Cruze. My wife and I
have each bought a Chevy Cruze. I am going to go finance a Chevy Cruze,
and I get a certain interest rate. We have seen data that shows that if
somebody looks a little different from me--if they are African
American, Latina, Asian American, or Pacific Islanders--they pay a
higher interest rate. We know that is what the data says. But this
body--from the last vote, it is pretty clear--they say that is all
right, that if the dealer wants to charge higher interest rates to
people of color, that is OK.
So it is bad enough that we are saying today and this body is giving
its stamp of approval saying that it is OK to discriminate and to
charge higher interest rates to people of color. I have said this in
the Banking Committee before, and Senator Crapo has heard me say this
many times: The ZIP Code where my wife and I live in Cleveland, OH, had
more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States of America.
There are reasons for that. Part of the reasons for that is who lives
in my ZIP Code, mostly.
But it is not just that which today's legislation would do. It
threatens thousands more protections for workers and families that are
vulnerable to repeal by Congress.
Republicans have used the Congressional Review Act to repeal
important rules that would have given low-wage workers access to
retirement plans. So here in the Senate, we talk about caring about
workers, we talk about the dignity of work, and we talk about helping
people save for the future, but one of the provisions of the
Congressional Review Act would have given low-wage workers access to
retirement plans, and this legislation takes it away.
One of the other rules that were rolled back ensured that Federal
contract employers had protections for their workers regardless of
race, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation. It
ensured that women had the right to choose their own healthcare
provider regardless of their form of insurance.
The Congressional Review Act repeals all of those rules.
They repealed the rule that would have guaranteed customers the right
to a day in court when they were ripped off by a bank like Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo has a whole rap sheet of ripping off their customers. But
we in this body said: Well, you shouldn't have done that, Mr. and Mrs.
Wells Fargo, but we are going to let you do that on individual
contracts.
So if you are wronged by Wells Fargo or any of these other big
financial institutions, you don't get a day in court, sorry. That is
what this body did.
It is the same with Equifax. We know what Equifax did. Equifax
violated the privacy of pretty much half the people in North Dakota or
Idaho or Ohio or in this whole country, but we said: That is OK,
Equifax; just try not to do it again; and we let them off the hook.
Fortunately, too much time has passed for Congress to use the
Congressional Review Act to roll back other protections the last
administration put in place, but they now want to open up a whole new
idea. They want to use a legal loophole to interfere with potentially
thousands more Federal decisions, potentially going back as far as 20
years.
In order to clarify how laws work, Federal agencies--this is really
in the weeds, but you know we have some pretty smart people here who
figure out how to go in the weeds and find loopholes and exploit people
and, frankly, hurt the little guy. Whether she works in construction or
punches a time clock or works as a waitress in a diner in Garfield
Heights, they find ways to screw the little guy.
So here is how it works. Federal agencies issue guidance to help
people understand how the law protects them and to help businesses
understand how to follow the law. Just last week, some of these smart
people--my Republican colleagues--at a hearing decried the practice of
enforcing the law without providing guidance in advance. This week,
though--this week--some of those same smart Republicans want to start
nullifying agency guidance, which would completely up-end the Federal
programs that families depend on. And this is an anti-business
decision, too, on their part. The businesses want the predictability,
they want the certainty so they can follow the rules.

Under this crazy new plan, some of these very smart Republicans--and
at least one of them is on the Banking Committee--under this new plan,
they can ban Federal agencies from explaining how States administer
Federal health insurance programs, programs like the Children's Health
Insurance Program. They can undermine requirements to make sure that
federally funded projects pay the local prevailing wages.
Today I went to breakfast with a number of iron workers and glaziers
and laborers and electricians and pipe fitters and others who work with
their hands and make a damn good living, with good benefits and good
retirement for their families. You know what. They can use this
newfound rule that these very smart Republican legislators figured out
how to exploit to undermine pay and beat back local prevailing wage
laws.
Republicans have used the Congressional Review Act to attack access
to healthcare and worker and environmental protections. So it is no
stretch. They have done it before. It is no stretch that they would do
it again, only now there would be no limits on the types of agency
actions they can target because they found this loophole and they can
go back 20 years. The one we are working on today was handed down--this
agency guidance was handed down in 2013.
So one of the first things Republicans want to do with this--they are
just so excited with this new loophole--they found that they can go
after people who don't have good lobbyists in Washington. They can go
after people who won't contribute to their campaign. They can go after
people who, frankly, struggle every day just to make a living in this
country.
What is the first thing they do? They make car loans--it is clear
what happens. They make car loans more expensive for women and for
people of color. The bill sends a message to lenders across the country
that if you are legally discriminating, go ahead, we are not going to
stop you.
We created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to police Wall
Street banks and other shady lenders who ripped off working families.
Under its last Director, the Bureau returned $12 billion to 29 million
Americans who had been ripped off by payday lenders and credit card
companies and for-profit colleges.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau used to be a cop on the beat
to protect consumers. We want a consumer bureau because we have the
banks--$1 trillion, $2 trillion; Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells
Fargo--these banks are trillion-dollar banks, some of them $2 trillion.
So we have the banks here, and we have a lot of consumers who don't
have a union or any protection, and they sign these contracts for a
loan or something, and they don't really know what the fine print says.
So that is why we have a consumer bureau--to protect those people.
Twenty-nine million Americans have benefited from it just since its
creation less than a decade ago, and they have saved $12 billion. It
used to be a cop on the beat. It used to issue reports warning
consumers about industries that weren't following the law. It brought

[[Page S2206]]

tough enforcement actions. It identified discriminatory lending
practices in auto loans and home mortgages.
We know discrimination is still a major problem for people of color
who make the biggest investment of their lives: their house and their
car--their house and their car, their two biggest investments, and you
can legally discriminate in this country because of the way somebody
looks. You can discriminate against them because of race, and now we
are saying it is OK.
Look at what has happened in this country because they said that.
Just a few months ago, the Center for Investigative Reporting released
a report showing that redlining is still a problem in big American
cities to this day. The National Fair Housing Alliance conducted tests
and demonstrated that people of color were systematically offered worse
loan terms for cars than White borrowers with the exact same credit
seeking to purchase the exact same vehicle. But instead of working to
root out this discrimination--you would think that is what we would all
do, Republicans and Democrats alike. Instead, we are making it easier
for banks to turn customers away or to take advantage of them based on
the color of their skin. This is 2018, for gosh sakes. Why would we
still be doing that?
This repeal could permanently weaken Federal anti-discrimination
laws. These laws have been the law of the land for decades. These are
the laws that brave Americans fought for during the civil rights
movement. Do you remember when Congress passed the fair housing bill?
The fair housing bill was passed a week after Dr. King's assassination,
50 years ago last week. You would think we would want to strengthen it,
not weaken it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from
the scores of civil rights and consumer and environmental and other
organizations that vehemently oppose this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

April 16, 2018.
The undersigned organizations are strongly united in
opposition to S.J. Resolution 57, sponsored by Sen. Moran (R-
KS), which attempts to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
to target regulatory actions by federal agencies that were
issued well in the past and have been in effect for years or
potentially even decades. We vigorously oppose any attempt by
the Senate to subject the ``Bulletin on Indirect Auto Lending
and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act''--
issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in
2013--to a vote under the CRA. Many of us oppose repealing
this important guidance on substantive grounds, but we join
together today to focus instead on the procedural issue of
using the CRA against a guidance that has been in place for
years.
We oppose such a vote, as it would contravene the clear
intent of the CRA to allow Congress to review and challenge
recently finalized agency actions. This would set a dangerous
precedent that would open the door for Congress to stretch
the CRA to challenge a wide variety of settled agency actions
that have been in effect for years or decades, particularly
``guidance documents'' that are not only crucial to
protecting workers, consumers, minorities, the environment,
and the economy but also to providing regulatory certainty
for businesses and the public. Using the CRA, rather than
regular legislative order, to attack years-old established
guidance would be an extraordinary and egregious abuse of
normal process--exactly the kind of rigged action on behalf
of narrow corporate insiders that so infuriates Americans of
all political stripes.
This Congress has already used the CRA in unprecedented
fashion to repeal fourteen common-sense, carefully developed
regulations that protect the public, including measures to
protect internet privacy, women's health, retirement
security, workplace safety, fair pay in the workplace, the
environment and clean water, anti-corruption safeguards, and
sensible gun control. Unlike the normal legislative process,
the CRA is already problematic legislation which gives
Congress the ability to strike down regulations that protect
the public on behalf of narrow special interests without any
congressional hearings and virtually no floor debate. The
appropriate response would be for Congress to revisit this
flawed process rather than expand it to undermine policies
that were finalized long ago.
Applying the CRA to settled agency actions from the past
would violate the clear intent and spirit of the law. The
legislative history of the CRA makes plain its purpose:
``this legislation establishes a government wide
congressional review mechanism for most new rules.'' As a
procedural matter, Congress could have, and more
appropriately should have, reviewed the guidance at issue
here back in 2013 when it was issued by the CFPB, requested a
GAO opinion at that time to determine its eligibility under
the CRA and potentially used the CRA to challenge such
guidance shortly after its issuance in 2013. Indeed, Congress
has made multiple GAO requests regarding the applicability of
the CRA to guidance documents when the guidance was
originally issued or shortly thereafter. Subjecting these
actions to the CRA now would fly in the face of congressional
intent and stretch the law in ways that were neither
anticipated nor expected by those who voted for it.
Moreover, it raises suspicions that this CRA challenge is
being undertaken now, rather than following the issuance of
the guidance in 2013, because there is a higher chance of
success given the makeup of this Congress.
Moreover, applying the CRA to long-established guidance
would be, simply put, wrongheaded. Guidance documents are
often specifically requested by regulated entities and
industry stakeholders in order to resolve uncertainties in
the application of regulations to stakeholder business
practices, including in the form of so-called ``No Action
Letters''. Using the CRA to repeal guidance documents would
imperil numerous past guidance documents that were not
submitted to Congress under the CRA, including many that were
specifically requested by regulated entities or stakeholders.
Congress should act with caution, if at all, in using the CRA
on guidance documents, but applying the CRA to longstanding
guidance would be misguided.
Long-established guidance is not locked into place; when
appropriate, it is a relatively simple matter for agencies to
revise or repeal longstanding guidance. In fact, agencies
have already begun the process of revising or repealing
another guidance document that was the subject of a recent
GAO opinion, the so-called ``leveraged lending'' guidance
which ensures that big banks do not engage in risky lending
practices that threaten the financial system, without any
need for a CRA vote.
Given the long and growing list of legislative issues that
need to be addressed by the Senate on an urgent and expedited
basis, it is difficult to fathom why the Senate would choose
to spend valuable floor time to repeal guidance under the CRA
when such guidance could be effectively revisited, and if
appropriate, repealed by the agency that issued it in short
order and with limited procedural requirements. By bringing
this vote to the Senate floor, it sends a message to the
public that Congress is more interested in giving narrow
handouts to special interests rather than addressing the real
issues that impact hard-working Americans and their families.
We, the under-signed groups, strongly urge Senators to
reject abusing the CRA to attack guidance documents that were
issued years ago, and get back to solving real problems on
behalf of the American public. We strongly urge you to reject
S.J. Resolution 57.
Alaska Wilderness League, American Association for Justice,
American Bird Conservancy, American Federation of Teachers,
American Sustainable Business Council, Americans for
Financial Reform, Center for American Progress Action Fund,
Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Progressive
Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Citizens'
Environmental Coalition, Clean Water Action, Coalition on
Human Needs, Communications Workers of America (CWA),
Conservation Lands Foundation, Consumer Action, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and
Safety, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice.
EarthRights International, Endangered Species Coalition,
Environmental Working Group, Family Equality Council, Food &
Water Watch, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, International
Corporate Accountability Roundtable, League of Conservation
Voters, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates,
National Association of Social Workers, National Audubon
Society, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center
for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality,
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income
clients), National Employment Law Project, National Law
Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National LGBTQ Task Force
Action Fund.
National Organization for Women, National Women's Law
Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Network for
Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of
Christ, Northcoast Environmental Center, Progressive Congress
Action Fund, Public Citizen, Publish What You Pay--US, Safe
Alternatives for our Forest Environment, Soda Mountain
Wilderness Council, South Umpqua Rural Community Partnership,
Tennessee Citizen Action, Texas Appleseed, The Center for
Auto Safety, The Lands Council, The Wilderness Society, U.S.
PIRG, Umpqua Watersheds, Inc., Union of Concerned Scientists,
United Steelworkers, Western Environmental Law Center,
WildEarth Guardians, Woodstock Institute, and Young
Invincibles.
____

April 16, 2018.
Majority Leader McConnell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Minority Leader Schumer,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer:
We, the undersigned civil rights and consumer advocacy

[[Page S2207]]

organizations, ask you to oppose S.J. Res. 57, the
Congressional Review Act (CRA), introduced by Senator Jerry
Moran (R-KS), intended to undo the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's (CFPB or Consumer Bureau) Indirect Auto
Lending Guidance, published over five years ago. This
resolution is the latest in a series of attempts to chill
federal efforts to end widespread unlawful discrimination.
Discrimination in the auto lending market is well-documented
and results in people of color paying more for years to
finance a car purchase. This CRA would also set the dangerous
precedent of undoing long-standing federal agency guidance--
an expansion of the use of the Congressional Review Act, and
certainly beyond its original purpose of narrowly reviewing
regulations soon after they were enacted.
The Consumer Bureau's 2013 indirect auto lending guidance
put auto lenders on clear notice that the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes them liable for discriminatory
pricing on auto loans they acquire from auto dealers. ECOA
makes it illegal for a creditor to discriminate in any aspect
of a credit transaction on the basis of race or other
protected bases; indirect auto lenders are creditors under
ECOA.
Discrimination in auto lending has long been widespread,
and a significant culprit is the discretionary dealer mark-
up. Three-fourths of all consumers use a loan to purchase a
car, and 80% of auto loans are financed through the auto
dealer. The auto dealer may provide that financing directly
or it may facilitate indirect financing by an indirect third-
party lender. In indirect auto financing, the dealer usually
collects basic information regarding the applicant and uses
an automated system to forward that information to several
prospective indirect auto lenders. The indirect auto lender
establishes a ``buy rate'' for the customer. The dealer can
then add as much as 2-2.5% to the buy rate and keep some or
all of the difference. These mark-ups have been found to add
over $25 billion to the total loan cost of auto loans made
over the course of one year.
The discriminatory impact of this discretionary practice
has been researched and documented, time and again. In the
mid-1990s, a series of lawsuits were filed against the
largest auto finance companies based on data showing that
that borrowers of color were twice as likely to have their
loans marked up and paid markups twice as large as similarly
situated white borrowers with similar credit ratings. The
CFPB's own investigations found that borrowers who identified
as African American, Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander paid
between 20 and 36 basis points more for their loans than
similarly situated white borrowers, adding between $150 and
$300 in additional interest over the life of those consumers'
loans.
We have seen the evidence that enforcement against auto
lending discrimination has resulted in real benefits to
wronged borrowers of color. As a result of its
investigations, the Consumer Bureau, jointly with the
Department of Justice, took enforcement action against Ally
Financial, Honda, Fifth Third Bank, and Toyota, which
resulted in restitution to wronged borrowers of over $140
million. These lenders also agreed to adjust their pricing
models by limiting the amount of their dealer mark-ups--real
evidence of progress in the fight against a discriminatory
lending practice. Of note, the 2013 guidance also explains
that lenders can address fair lending risk by paying
compensation to dealers in ways other than allowing them to
mark up the interest rate.
Discrimination in auto lending continues to be a very real
problem. In early 2018, a study conducted by the National
Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) paired white and non-white
testers to visit auto dealerships and shop for the same car
within 24 hours of each other. The study found that, more
often than not, the better qualified non-white applicant was
offered higher cost pricing options than the less qualified
white applicant, resulting in those non-white borrowers
paying on average $2,662 more than the white borrowers over
the life of the loan. Additionally, NFHA found that 75% of
the time, white testers were offered more financing options
than non-white testers. These statistics further prove the
need for continued vigilant enforcement against violations of
ECOA, as well as clear expectations for industry like the
2013 guidance provides.
Auto loans are the third most prevalent form of debt among
U.S. residents after home and student loans. Discrimination
in auto lending contributes to credit access disparities and
to the racial and ethnic wealth gap. This CRA would send the
wrong message to the auto industry and to the American
people.
In addition, CRA has never been used to undo longstanding
guidance, and it was not intended to be used this way.
Permitting CRAs to undo longstanding guidance opens the door
to regulatory uncertainty across the federal regulatory
environment and across a range of U.S. markets as a result.
We urge you to oppose S.J. Res. 57 and keep the federal
government's commitment to rooting out racial discrimination
clear.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact Cheye-Ann Corona, Senior
Policy Associate with the Center for Responsible Lending,
Sincerely,
Allied Progress, American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Americans for Financial Reform,
Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lenders, California
Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Responsible Lending, Color
of Change, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union,
Impact Fund, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
NACA--Ohio State Chair, National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), National Association
of Social Workers, National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income
clients), National Urban League, Public Citizen, Public Good
Law Center, Public Justice Center, Texas Appleseed, The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, U.S. PIRG,
UnidosUS, and United Church of Christ.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Americans for Financial Reform called this
resolution ``a deeply troubling piece of legislation that will leave
millions of people of color at the mercy of auto-dealers and lenders
with a long history of racial discrimination.''
I know a lot of auto dealers, and I am sure my friend from Idaho,
Senator Crapo, does as well. We all do. Most of them don't do this, but
some of them do, and why are we allowing the some of them who do to
continue to do this?
If Republicans are willing to use this loophole that a few very smart
Republicans uncovered--this loophole that they went down in the weeds
and figured out how to exploit--if they are willing to use this
loophole to attack our basic right to equality, there may be no end to
the other consumer protections they can repeal. Big corporations could
be free to take advantage of customers with little to rein them in,
with fewer consumer protections and with fewer environmental
protections.
Think of the progress we have made in this country because of
consumer protection, because of strong safe drinking water laws, and
because of strong clean air laws. I live 10 miles from Lake Erie. I
know about the progress, in part because we passed strong laws for
environmental protection. I know what we have done to clean up Lake
Erie.
The Great Lakes are 20 percent of all the ground and surface
freshwater in the world. I look at what we have done as a society. Do
we want to go back on this as the President cuts funding to clean up
the Great Lakes? The EPA issues guidelines today to ensure that
corporate polluters aren't putting communities in danger by
contaminating the air they breathe or the water they drink. States rely
on Federal guidance--the key word--so they can work with the Federal
Government to provide healthcare to families and children. Workers rely
on guidance from the Department of Labor to make sure they are getting
fair pay in a safe workplace. But under the legislation before us
today, those protections could be stripped away in the future, one by
one by one.
Every time somebody here wants to do a favor for their favorite
special interest group, they can go down to Senator McConnell's office,
probably pick up a ticket--because there is probably going to be a
line, with all the lobbyists going in and out--they will pick up a
ticket to say, which special interest group can I do a favor for today,
and they will find another one.
For the millions who lost their jobs, for the millions who lost their
homes in the financial crisis a decade ago, for the millions who are
struggling to build their retirement with wages that haven't been
growing for more than 20 years, it is already hard enough to get ahead.
We should be making it easier for them, not harder.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tax Reform

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today is tax day, not typically a day of
celebration for anyone, with maybe the exception of the IRS. But this
year there is--believe it or not--something to celebrate because tax
day 2018 marks the end of the old tax system.
Next year, Americans will be filling out their taxes under the new
tax system that was created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means
that they will be paying less in taxes and keeping more of their hard-
earned money.

[[Page S2208]]

If anything became clear during the last election cycle, it was that
the economy was not working well for American families. In CNN exit
polling, 62 percent of voters rated the economy as poor, and that
wasn't surprising. The Obama administration was tough for American
workers. Job creation was sluggish, wages were stagnant, and economic
growth lagged far behind the pace of other recoveries. Opportunities
for workers were few and far between. It is no wonder that so many
hard-working Americans felt like they had been left behind.
Republicans were listening, and one of our top priorities in this
Congress has been improving the economic outlook for the American
people, which is why last fall we took up tax reform.
The Tax Code may not be the first thing people think of when they
think of economic prosperity, but it actually plays a key role in
determining the success of individual families and of our economy as a
whole. The more money the Federal Government takes from you in taxes,
the less money you have to pay bills or to buy a house or repair your
car or save for retirement. The more money a business has to give to
the Federal Government, the less money it has to grow the business and
to invest in its workers.
So when it came time to draft a tax bill, Republicans had two goals.
First, we wanted to put more money in the pockets of hard-working
Americans right away. Second, we wanted to create the kind of economy
that would give Americans access to economic security over the long
term.
Now, I am proud to report that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has already
achieved the first goal and is well on its way to achieving the second.
To put more money in Americans' pockets, we lowered tax rates across
the board and nearly doubled the standard deduction--the amount of
Americans' income that is automatically free from taxation.
We also acted to provide relief for parents, who are doing the hard
work of raising the next generation, by doubling the child tax credit
and allowing more parents to claim the credit. We eliminated the
individual mandate tax, which disproportionately hit low-income
families. We also made sure to protect key retirement savings plans--
401(k)s and individual retirement accounts--and we improved education
savings accounts, allowing families to use their 529 plans to save for
elementary and secondary as well as higher education.
Thanks to the IRS's new withholding tables and its new withholding
calculator, Americans have already started seeing the new tax relief in
their paychecks.
For a lot of Americans, that is not all they are seeing in their
paychecks. A lot of Americans are also seeing pay increases or bonuses
thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
That brings me to our second reform goal, which was creating the kind
of economy that would give Americans access to economic security and
prosperity for the long term. We knew that the only way to give
Americans access to real long-term economic security was to ensure that
they had access to good jobs, good wages, and real opportunities. We
knew that the only way to guarantee access to good jobs, wages, and
opportunities was to make sure that businesses had the ability to
create and maintain them.
But before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code wasn't helping
businesses to create jobs or to increase opportunities for workers. In
fact, it was doing the opposite, and that had real consequences for
American workers.
A small business owner struggling to afford the hefty annual tax bill
for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or
to raise wages. A larger business struggling to stay competitive in the
global marketplace while paying a substantially higher tax rate than
its foreign competitors too often had limited funds to expand or
increase investment here in the United States.
So when it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the
playing field for American workers by improving the playing field for
businesses as well. To accomplish that, we lowered tax rates across the
board for owners of small and medium-sized businesses and farms and
ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate which, up
until January 1, was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed
world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover investments they
make in their businesses, which frees up cash they can reinvest in
their operations and their workers.
We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by
replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial
tax system so that American businesses are not operating at a
disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors.
The goal in all of this was to free up businesses to increase
investments in the U.S. economy, to hire new workers, and to increase
wages and benefits, and that is exactly what they are doing.
In response to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, more than 500 companies
across this country, and counting, have announced good news for
American workers. Company after company has announced pay raises,
bonuses, 401(k) match increases, and other benefits.
Others are expanding their businesses and investing in new equipment
and facilities. Still others are passing tax savings on to their
customers in the form of things like utility rate cuts. That means more
money for Americans now and more money for Americans in the future.
Tax day may never be a fun day, but Americans can take heart because
thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, next year's tax day is going to be
a lot less painful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the CRA
we voted to proceed to and on which we will vote for final passage
tomorrow. It is a Congressional Review Act resolution that will allow
us to repeal an ill-conceived CFPB regulation.
Let me start with just a word about the CFPB because this is an
agency that is fundamentally flawed in its design and has been so since
day one.
First, there is a single individual director. There is no bipartisan
commission. There is no board. There is no need for consensus. There is
one-man rule.
Secondly, this one individual can only be removed for cause. He is
part of the executive branch, but the Chief Executive can't fire him.
This makes no sense.
Finally, the entire CFPB--this huge regulatory agency--is subject to
no meaningful oversight. They are not dependent on Congress--the
people's representatives--for taxpayer funding. They just draw whatever
they want out of the Fed, which means the Fed has that much less to
hand over to the Treasury. An individual, rather than a commission, no
ability to remove, except for cause, and not subject to appropriation--
it is a recipe for a disaster. That is what we have had.

It is not just my opinion, by the way. A three-judge panel of the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this structure is fundamentally
unconstitutional. I will quote briefly from their decision. They said:
``The CFPB's [concentration of] enormous executive power in a single,
unaccountable, unchecked Director not only departs from settled
historical practice, but also poses a far greater risk of arbitrary
decision making and abuse of power, and a far greater threat to
individual liberty, than does a multi-member independent agency.''
Fortunately, we have an Acting Director at the moment who gets this.
Mick Mulvaney has testified about these very flaws in the CFPB and
suggested, as many of us have, at least some structural reforms, making
the CFPB subject to appropriations so Congress has meaningful
oversight; requiring that the major rules they pass be subject to a
legislative approval, which is Congress taking responsibility for the
action Congress delegates; giving the President the ability to hire and
fire a Director; and having an independent inspector general so we have
a watchdog.
This is the least we should do. Our colleagues on the other side have
not been willing to agree to any of them, so we have this badly flawed
agency. It shouldn't be surprising that a flawed structure leads to
badly flawed policies. That is why we are here discussing this CRA. It
is about the indirect auto lending guidance, as it is called, that the
CFPB issued some time ago.

[[Page S2209]]

Let me explain a little bit about what this is. Indirect auto
lending--what is that? Direct auto lending is what you might think. It
is when a consumer, a buyer--someone who wants to buy a car--goes to a
bank and lines up financing from the bank. That would be direct auto
financing. Indirect auto financing is when the car dealer provides the
arrangement of the financing for you. The actual financing is
ultimately performed by a lending institution, but the car dealer makes
the arrangements.
Indirect auto loans are actually very good for consumers for a
variety of reasons. No. 1, it is very convenient. You don't have to
shop around to a bunch of banks, as well as a bunch of car dealers. You
get one-stop shopping, and you have both.
No. 2, it tends to be more competition for the consumers' loan. How
many banks are you going to realistically go out and visit when you are
attempting to line up your financing? But the car dealer can routinely
canvass all the available lending options and make sure the consumer
gets the best possible deal.
Finally, as a routine matter of practice, dealers have always been
able to discount the loan as one of the negotiating provisions in a
multipart transaction. That is important to stress here. The nature of
the car-buying experience--for any of us who have done it--very
typically, there are several moving parts, several transactions. There
is the purchase price you negotiate for the vehicle you are buying and
the trade-in value for the vehicle you are parting with. There is the
value of other services you may negotiate for. It is not possible to
judge the overall economics of a transaction like this unless you know
all of the components. The interest rate you pay on the loan is but one
of several important components.
Along comes the CFPB. In December of 2013, they issued a bulletin
that is an attempt to regulate the indirect auto lending. In this, they
warned lenders of a disparate impact liability.
Let me explain briefly what this means. First of all, if lending
policy is discriminatory, it is illegal. If there is discrimination on
the basis of any protected class--and that would include race, sex,
age, gender, and other things--it is illegal. What the CFPB came along
and said is, even if the lending policy is not discriminatory--not on
its face, it is nondiscriminatory--you can still be liable for the
violation of the law if the CFPB thinks there is a protected class,
some category of people, who are paying, on average, a higher interest
rate on their loan. This is the disparate impact theory the CFPB used
in order to attempt to end the ability of auto dealers to discount
loans as part of a negotiated transaction on a car purchase.
Why is this so problematic? There are two categories. First is the
very process by which the CFPB came up with this rule. First of all, it
is actually a guidance, not a rulemaking. What does that mean? That
means they chose not to follow the law, the Administrative Procedure
Act, that requires an agency go through a very systematic and public
process of getting a lot of input and review on a proposed law,
proposed rule, before it goes into effect.
For very good reason, we require regulators to get public input, to
give experts, consumers, and people engaged in the business the
opportunity to examine the rule under consideration and provide some
feedback as to whether there might be unforeseen consequences or flaws
in it. They did none of this. The CFPB did not consult with the other
regulators, as they are required by Dodd-Frank, nor did they do a cost-
benefit analysis, which is also required by Dodd-Frank. They surprised
the industry and the consumers by fundamentally reinterpreting how the
anti-discrimination legislation would be interpreted.
Why did they do this? Why did they take this approach? Why did they
circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act? It is a convenient way to
avoid scrutiny. It is a convenient way to impose one's will without
public scrutiny, without any analysis.
This is a very bad process and, not surprisingly, the outcome is
equally bad. The methodology they used to determine discrimination on
the basis of race is really amazing. Since there is no information
about the race of a borrower in financing for a vehicle, the lenders
don't know the race of the borrowers, literally. They have no idea.
Neither does the CFPB, but that didn't stop them from alleging racial
discrimination. They developed a methodology, a system, where they
attempt to guess the race of a car buyer who is financing the purchase
of a car through a loan. They tried to guess their race based on the
last name and geography. They assign a probability to a person being
African American or Hispanic or European American or whatever based on
a surname and geography.

This is a wildly flawed process, which quite predictably led to huge
errors. Independent, outside analysis has concluded that their error
rates could be as high as 40 percent. So 40 percent of the people they
would designate as African American, in fact, are not, or 40 percent of
the people they would designate as European American, in fact, are not.
It is not just that they got their guesstimate wrong about race, but
the manner in which they got it wrong led to the wrong and erroneous
conclusion. In other words, there were systemic flaws that completely
invalidated their conclusions.
Finally, and maybe in some ways most important, they willfully chose
to ignore all the other components of the transaction. They allege that
someone was adversely impacted because they paid a higher rate of
interest on a loan, but they have no idea what the purchase price on
the vehicle was. They have no idea what the trade-in was for the used
vehicle. They have no idea what other services were being offered.
This gets worse. The CFPB decided they needed to make an example of
someone so they could terrorize the industry into ending this practice
of discounting interest rates, and they found a good victim. The
Federal Government owned about 74 percent of Ally Bank at the time.
They had an application before the Fed to change their corporate
organization, which they needed to do. They needed to complete that;
otherwise, they would have to shed whole business lines. It is a long,
complicated story. Suffice it to say, Ally Bank's future existence, as
it was formed, depended on an approval from the Fed for what should
have been a routine change in corporate structure. The Fed made it
clear they weren't going to grant that change until there was a
settlement with the CFPB, so Ally Bank was over a barrel. That was
exactly what the CFPB wanted. Five days before the deadline, which
would have required Ally Bank to divest itself of whole categories of
business, the CFPB shakes them down for $100 million. Four days later,
the Fed approves the application. The CFPB found its opportunity, made
its example, and it had a chilling effect on the market.
Let me wrap this up with what we are talking about here. It is an
unaccountable, out-of-control agency that circumvented the proper
rulemaking process in order to avoid public scrutiny about what they
were trying to do. They imposed their will on an industry that the
Dodd-Frank legislation explicitly forbid them from regulating. They
developed a badly flawed methodology to allege discrimination on the
part of lenders on the basis of race, despite the fact that the lenders
didn't know the race of the borrowers. They picked a victim who
couldn't fight back. They hit the victim with a $100 million fine
without the CFPB knowing that any individual was actually unfairly
treated by Ally Bank. It didn't matter.
Who ultimately pays the price for this kind of behavior? The very
consumers the CFPB is supposed to be serving. Under this very flawed
rule of the CFPB, the goal was to effectively prevent auto dealers from
being able to discount the interest rate on a loan, being unable to
compete with a bank down the road that might be offering a lower rate,
being unable to negotiate a term that might be helpful to a borrower.
Consumers under the CFPB's rule have fewer options, less flexibility,
reduced access to credit, and higher costs. That is why Congress should
overturn this. This is our opportunity to set this right. The House
voted 332 to 96 to repeal this rule. We can do this tomorrow.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have complained about
the use of a CRA in application to a guidance issue. Our Democratic
colleagues

[[Page S2210]]

themselves attempted to do this exact same thing with respect to a chip
guidance that was issued some years ago, and they were perfectly OK
with it then. I don't see why they can't be OK with it now.
It is important to note what this resolution does not do. It does not
change, in any way, the legitimate enforcement of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act. It doesn't amend that act. It doesn't change
regulation B. The enforcement of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act would
simply continue as it had gone for 30-plus years. Discrimination in
credit providing has been illegal and will continue to be illegal when
we successfully pass this CRA.
I thank Senator Moran and Will Ruder from his staff, John Crews from
my staff. I thank Terry van Doren from Leader McConnell's staff for his
help. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important
Congressional Review Act resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Tax Reform

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, today is tax day, 2 days later than April
15 actually, but nonetheless, today is tax day. I rise to speak about
the impact of what we have done over the last 15 months to affect the
future of our free enterprise system in America. When President Donald
Trump took office last year, he set out with three clear priorities.
Under the major objective last year, job one was to grow the economy.
To do that, he charged us in Congress to focus on three things:
regulations, energy, and taxes. In addition to those three, we were
supposed to try to get to Dodd-Frank and take away some of the pressure
on small banks and regional banks, which we have done this year in the
Senate. Just a few weeks ago, we passed a bill. The reason that is
important, those four things will free up some estimated $6 trillion in
potential capital investment that has not been at work in our $20
trillion economy.
What we have just done with regulation, energy, and taxes will free
up or have the opportunity to free up the $6 trillion. That is huge in
this economy. In the regulatory environment last year, well over 860
regulations were reversed. It is the largest in history. Concrete steps
have been taken to unleash our country's full energy potential,
including with ANWR, the Keystone Pipeline, and adjustments to the
Clean Power Plan and the waters of the United States, just to mention a
few.

Finally, historic changes to the Tax Code were signed into law by
President Trump. It used to be that today was a bad day in America, and
we all dreaded it. It was the day we had to turn our taxes in. This
year, it is actually a day of good news in that this is the last time
the American people will have to file their taxes by using the old,
outdated tax system that has become so archaic and so noncompetitive
with the rest of the world. These changes to the Tax Code will bring
relief to American workers and businesses. The average, median-income
household in America--a family of four--will see its taxes reduced by
about $2,000 a year, or more than half.
The change to the Tax Code of making our tax rate more competitive is
making American-made goods much more competitive on the world stage.
The greatest hindrance to and the greatest tax on the American worker
in years past was this archaically high corporate tax rate. People
said: Well, we just pushed all of those profits to the corporate
entities. No, this is the greatest thing we could do for the American
worker--to help them become more competitive with the rest of the
world, to give them a level playing field. That is what we did in this
tax bill.
We are already seeing the early positive results. Over 2 million new
jobs have been created since President Trump took office, and consumer
confidence is at a 17-year high. As an ex-retailer and a person who has
worked with consumer products and in manufacturing for most of his
career, I have watched this index. This is phenomenal to be at a 17-
year high this early in this turnaround. It bodes well for the future
of what we have just done.
CEO confidence is at a 20-year high. Some $2 trillion in overseas
profits has potentially been unlocked to be made available now for
capital investment back in this country. Yes, we already see public
corporations making public statements in their quarterly earnings
reviews about the capital investment plans they are laying out. We see
investment increases being announced every month from public companies
in America today. There is no question that businesses are beginning to
bring those profits home and investing in our economy.
Nationally, in addition, over 4 million Americans have received
bonuses and wage increases. Over 500 businesses have taken positive
action, be it by giving out bonuses, raising wages, increasing 401(k)
matches, or increasing their overall investments in their companies.
As a matter of fact, another benefit is that most of these public
corporations have major foundations that do philanthropic work--
tremendously constructive philanthropic work. Most of these companies
that have made these announcements about their own financial well-being
and those of their employees have also dramatically increased their
contributions to those philanthropic efforts and those trust funds.
In my home State of Georgia, dozens of companies are taking action
because of these changes to the Tax Code, and they are making these
statements public. Just go to any public corporation today that is in
its latest quarterly return and look at what it is saying about how
this tax change affects its business and the future of its employees.
This is huge.
It is also huge for the entire country because we are much more
competitive today than we have been. For years the Tax Code was working
against American workers and our entire economy. It was crippling small
businesses' ability to expand their companies and hire more workers. It
was damaging our ability to compete with the rest of the world.
Changing the Tax Code last year was the single greatest thing we could
have done to have unleashed economic growth this year, and we are just
getting started.
I have been through some of these large turnarounds, and I
characterize this as a mega turnaround. After 8 years of the lowest
economic growth in U.S. history, we are now on the rebound. That is so
important for the future of our country in the long term. We have a $21
trillion debt today, as the Presiding Officer knows. One of the things
we have to do in order to dig our way out of that is to get our economy
healthy again. As documented by the CBO, or the Congressional Budget
Office, a 1-percent growth in GDP will yield $300 billion of Federal
revenue every year. That is $3 trillion over the next decade. With the
projection that we are going to add $10 trillion to the debt over the
next decade just from decisions that have been made over the last
decade, we can see that just growing the economy alone is not enough to
solve this debt crisis.
There are some in this body who have argued that this has been
nothing but a boondoggle, nothing but a huge deficit-increasing
exercise. Yes, there were identified costs included with this, but what
was not considered by the CBO was the long-term return on investment,
the leverage effect of that return on investment, or the leverage
effect of this returning profit situation that we have coming back from
the changes in the repatriation law. In addition to that, the CBO
disagreed with using the impact of foreign direct investment, which I
really don't understand.
I am proud that we got this tax bill done, and I know that the
positive impact is really just beginning. There are other things we
must do to deal with our national debt in the long term, like fixing
our budget process, cutting back on redundant agencies, saving Social
Security and Medicare, and finally getting after the spiraling nature
of the underlying drivers of our healthcare costs and not just the
insurance of it.
This wouldn't be happening without these changes to the Tax Code,
however, and without a President with a new perspective in the White
House. President Trump worked in the real world for decades, and he
brings that sense of urgency to the White House. Today he is working at
a business pace, not at a bureaucratic pace, and he is committed to
keeping up the positive momentum.
This year, the pressure is on the other side because, right now, as
we are

[[Page S2211]]

trying to deal with immigration, the labor issue might be a
constraining factor in the ultimate growth of this economy, and we need
to deal with that. For different reasons, both sides believe we need to
be investing in infrastructure. I will remind my colleagues in this
body that it was just in 2011 when this government threw $1 trillion
into our economy. I would debate the benefit of that particular
investment because it was not thrown at those stimulative issues that
would grow the economy.
Today, America deals with a new world. The world situation has never
been more dangerous. The best thing we can do for our military and for
our people is to get this economy moving again and create a level
playing field around the world to help our trade situation. That is
what the President is trying to do right now--to create a more level
playing field so as to grow our economy, fix our budget process, and
deal with the spending issues that we have here at home.
I am excited to be a part of the Joint Select Committee on Budget
Process Reform, which is charged with changing the way we fund the
Federal Government every year. I am hopeful that will lead to a new
budget process that will allow us to avoid the continuing resolutions
and the omnibuses by which five or six people get in a room and decide
how to spend $1 trillion. The tax changes alone will not dig us out of
this debt crisis. We knew that this was the first step in getting it
going, and I am delighted with the impact that it is having on our
economy today.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

All in Senate sectionPrev20 of 48Next

All Congresses 93-117 (1973-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)
96 (1979-1980)
95 (1977-1978)
94 (1975-1976)
93 (1973-1974)

Any Version of Legislation
AS - Amendment Ordered to be Printed
ASH - Additional Sponsors House
ATH - Agreed to House
ATS - Agreed to Senate
CDH - Committee Discharged House
CDS - Committee Discharged Senate
CPH - Considered and Passed House
CPS - Considered and Passed Senate
EAH - Engrossed Amendment House
EAS - Engrossed Amendment Senate
EH - Engrossed in House
ENR - Enrolled
ES - Engrossed in Senate
FPH - Failed Passage House
HDS - Held at Desk Senate
IH - Introduced in House
IPS - Indefinitely Postponed Senate
IS - Introduced in Senate
LTH - Laid on Table in House
LTS - Laid on Table in Senate
PAP - Printed as Passed
PCS - Placed on Calendar Senate
PP - Public Print
Private Law
Public Law
RCH - Reference Change House
RCS - Reference Change Senate
RDS - Received in Senate
RFH - Referred in House
RFS - Referred in Senate
RH - Reported in House
RIH - Referral Instructions House
RS - Reported to Senate
RTH - Referred to Committee House
RTS - Referred to Committee Senate
SC - Sponsor Change

All Congresses 97-117 (1981-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)

Any State or Territory
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Panama Canal Zone
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Any State
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Panama Canal Zone
Panama Canal Zone
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

All Congresses 96-117 (1979-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)
96 (1979-1980)

All Congresses 81-117 (1949-2022)
117 (2021-2022)
116 (2019-2020)
115 (2017-2018)
114 (2015-2016)
113 (2013-2014)
112 (2011-2012)
111 (2009-2010)
110 (2007-2008)
109 (2005-2006)
108 (2003-2004)
107 (2001-2002)
106 (1999-2000)
105 (1997-1998)
104 (1995-1996)
103 (1993-1994)
102 (1991-1992)
101 (1989-1990)
100 (1987-1988)
99 (1985-1986)
98 (1983-1984)
97 (1981-1982)
96 (1979-1980)
95 (1977-1978)
94 (1975-1976)
93 (1973-1974)
92 (1971-1972)
91 (1969-1970)
90 (1967-1968)
89 (1965-1966)
88 (1963-1964)
87 (1961-1962)
86 (1959-1960)
85 (1957-1958)
84 (1955-1956)
83 (1953-1954)
82 (1951-1952)
81 (1949-1950)

Any Topic
Agriculture
Arms Control
Aviation
Commercial
Consular
Dispute Settlement and Arbitration
Drugs/Illegal Substances
Environment
Extradition
Extradition and Criminal Assistance
Fisheries and Wildlife
Human Rights
Intellectual Property/Copyrights
International Law
International Law and Organization
Investment
Labor
Maritime Boundaries and Claims
Mutual Legal Assistance
Shipping and Marine Pollution
Taxation
Telecommunications
Terrorism
Trademarks/Patents
United Nations

April 17, 2018 - Issue: Vol. 164, No. 62 — Daily Edition115th Congress (2017 - 2018) - 2nd Session

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 62 (Senate - April 17, 2018)

Text available as:

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 62
(Senate - April 17, 2018)