after the chemical strike he said he wanted to attack. he is the one that sent out the tweet that big beautiful missiles going to be landing in syria. head's up russia. that was he.he was the one that actually signaled that this government was going to attack the chemical facilities. congress did not do that. with regard to keeping the tactics a secret, you should look to the president. he is the one actually tweeted out exactly what would happen in the days ahead and indeed, it did happen just as he said it would. >> what responsibility did the obama administration bear for the state of syria today? >> a great deal. the obama strategy and syria did not work. from the initial onset of the syrian civil war. the obama administration said assad has to go. and that remains to this day the policy of the united states. donald trump has not said

differently. >> we will leave it here as the u.s. senate is returning to debate an executive nomination. r congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of united states code of the rules submitted by bureau of consumer financial protection relating to indirect auto lending in compliance with the equal credit opportunity act. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. there appears to be. the question is on the motion to proceed. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 50, the nays are 47. the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will appoint the joint resolution. the clerk: calendar number 378, s.j. res. 57, providing for congressional approval under chapter 8 of the united states code of the rules submitted by the bureau of consumer financial protection relating to indirect auto lending and compliance with the equal credit opportunity act. a senator: mr. president. 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 rule-making process governed by the administrative procedures act. it was also an attempt to regulate auto dealers who were explicitly exempted from the cfpb supervision and regulation under the endanger dodd-frank act. according to an internal cfpb memo, the cfpb rejected developing a rule using its statutory authority because, quote, 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 noticed, that didn't stop former cfpb chief richard cordray who used the back door of auto financing to regulate dealers. make no mistae cfpb's decision to use 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 required by congress. the g.a.o. concluded, quote, 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 c.r.a.

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 rule making process. that provides for accountability, transparency and thorough evaluation. federal agency rules are governed by the administrative procedures act which generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rule making to 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 the rule makings 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 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 g.a.o.'s conclusion that it is a rule subject to c.r.a. requirements. without the opportunity for public comment and the ability for the bulletin to be revised to avoid any unintended consequences, auto dealer's 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 c.r.a.'s definition of a rule includes, with some limited exceptions, the whole or a part of an agency's 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 g.a.o. said this definition is broad and includes both rules requiring notice and comment rule making and those that do not, such as general statements of policy. this particular bulletin, according to g.a.o., advises the

public prospectively of the manner in which the cfpb proposes to exercise its discretionary enforcement power and fit 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 a guidance. article 1 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 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 fury and the cfpb's use of 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% of african

americans and 50% 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 332-96, 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 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 guidance or rule, 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 says 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. and the american financial services association says 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 credit-worthy consumers out of the vehicle financing market and has the potential to harm the vehicle industry and its associated u.s. jobs. mr. president, at this time i ask permission that the five letters i cited be entered into the record as well as a joint letter from the national auto dealers association, the national r.v. dealers association, the american international automobile dealers, the auto alliance driving innovation, 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 senate joint resolution 57. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. finally, president trump's statement of administration policy also endorses this resolution. mr. crapo: i'm 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 rule making. 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. mr. president, this rule should be disapproved, and any future action on the matter should go through the appropriate rule making 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 deal torres play a valuable role by matching buyers and lenders will be diminished. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. and with that, i yield the floor, mr. president.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you, mr. president. i'm here to -- to lend my support to a measure that i've had the honor of working with the senator from pennsylvania, senator toomey, with and to work side by side with the chairman of the banking committee of which i'm a member, the senator from idaho, senator crapo. i appreciate the leadership that both of those individuals and other of my 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 congress in regard to 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. main street being -- having the consequence of having the difficulties presented to them based upon what happened on wall street. in so many instances we ended up paying the price, the consumer ended up paying the price. as we tried to correct the problem, when dodd-frank was passed, it got way beyond those culpable for creating the financial circumstances and began to penalize those who had nothing to do with it. 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 for them to regulate auto loans. mr. president, i think the chairman, the senator from idaho, did a great job of explaining this resolution, but we have the authority today to reject the decision that was made by the consumer financial protection bureau, and i hope that my colleagues will join me in doing so. i introduced this resolution to accomplish that. senator toomey made clear by his efforts that this guidance that was issued by the consumer financial protection bureau is subject to a c.r.a., and that is our mission today to accomplish the passage of that c.r.a. i just jotted down while the chairman was speaking perhaps just four or five points that i would make to my colleagues. 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 can take out the political word probably. republicans made a mistake in saying we're 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 the problems that many of us saw in a bipartisan way with dodd-frank. those who say we have to get rid of the entire thing, those who say you can't touch it, and therefore the consumers, the citizens of this country have struggled, have been damaged by the consequences of dodd-frank. today we deal with a specific provision, and that, again, is the indirect automobile lending 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 secluded from the pro -- 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 the convention to the -- contravention to the law that says automobile dealers were not covered by. i was not in the senate when this legislation was offered. it was offered by my predecessor, senator brownback, and adopted as a provision in dodd-frank. it is very specific. i just read before i came to the

floor the exclusion. again, automobile dealers are excluded from the provisions of dodd-frank, and set consumer financial protection bureau found a -- and yet the consumer financial protection bureau found a way to get around the law and in the house when they passed dodd-frank. the c.r.a. is worth supporting because we are reaffirming the decision that was made when dodd-frank was passed. second, the language that the consumer financial protection bureau used, they didn't draft a rule and go through the rule-making process. they the didn't put out any comments about the industry that may be affected or those who may be affected by the enactment of this guidance. they tried to provide, the word is guidance, and 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 procedures act was avoided. i remember when the director of the consumer financial protection bureau was in front of the banking committee when asked about this, how can this be? it was simply, this is guidance and the administrative procedures act doesn't apply. yet, as we've seen, the g.a.o. has recently concluded that this is the same outcome, the same result of -- as rule making would be and therefore subject to the c.r.a. what that highlights for me is on -- in two instances already, cfpb created a way to get to an outcome they wanted without falling, in this case the administrative procedures 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 by the -- by the direction of those automobile dealers. the third item i would raise is what this guidance is designed to do is prevent discrimination. what they claim they were doing is to make certain that interest rates are not different based upon a person's race. i have no -- no qualms that that's a desired outcome, but because you can't ask a person's race, there's no way to know, and so what the consumer financial protection bureau did was create a computer program, an algorithm in which they

determine -- they guessed as to what a person's race was based upon their last name, how it sounds, and secondly, on their zip code. so never was the consumer financial protection bureau ever 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, in my mind, is discrimination itself, but perhaps the zip code, perhaps the same thing could be said about that, to 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 the 41% of the determinations were inaccurate.

so not quite half of every time the algorithm guessed what the race of a borrower was, they were wrong, and yet that apparently was sufficient for the cfpb to believe they had a basis for determining whether or not someone was discriminated against. i can't imagine 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, not upon actual fact. and so, again, the method by which the guidance was used to determine discrimination was significantly flawed and a process by which i can't find -- i can't believe that many americans would find comfort in. what i would say finally is that

elimination of the guidance, passage of the c.r.a. today would not do anything to change the prohibition against discrimination. it's not that if the c.r.a. is adopted that discrimination now becomes legal, and, in fact, discrimination has -- 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 opportunity act and it does not change rate b which allows for enforcement of that act. so what we are about is trying to correct the mistakes by the consumer financial protection bureau under dodd-frank which says you can't deal with

automobile dealers, trying to 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. we also, i think, can easily make the case that this kind of regulation -- excuse me, 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. mr. president, we have the opportunity today to correct a problem that was created -- that

was created in contravention of law that used a flawed method to determine whether or not a person was discriminated against and to improve the circumstances that consumers face at a time in which every dime matters. and so we should see an improvement in the opportunities for people to borrow money and to buy an automobile for the benefit of themselves and their families. mr. president, i hope my colleagues will join me, as they did in the motion to proceed, and that this c.r.a. will be adopted over the next day or so. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise in opposition to the motion. this is my second day in a row of 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, mr. president, republicans in this congress have made it pretty clear to the american people whose side they are on. they used the congressional review act, something that most people at home don't know about, something that most of us didn't know about until we've seen at the white house she executive retreats every weekend for wall street executives. they used the congressional review act more than any other congress in history to give handouts to big corporations at the expense of ordinary americans. mr. president, it's not enough -- it's not enough for republican legislators to go down to senator mcconnell's office down the halway and cut deals to give tax cuts to the richest people and to give tax breaks to general motors who promised, you know, if you give these tax cuts to the largest

corporations in america, they are going to raise wages and they are going to hire more people. g.m. just announced, to its everlasting discredit, hundreds of layoffs in the lord's plant in ohio, hundreds and hundreds of people laid off, perhaps permanently, we don't know. but the signs are not good. general motors because they make the decisions for the chevy cruze in -- crews in junction -- cruise in young town could be laid off. one of the centers of the american auto industry will probably see layoffs in the supply chain even though they get a huge tax cut written in the office down the hall in majority leader mcconnell's office. they got a huge tax cut, lots of money in their pockets. what do they do? mostly stock buybacks. they give -- they give -- they share this money with their

biggest stockholders. so that's what happened with the tax cut. now they are giving another handout to a big corporation at the expense of americans. it's bad enough we're considering this congressional review act piece of legislation. we're considering a bill that will tell wall street banks and shady lenders it's okay to discriminate against borrowers. somebody that looks like me can go into a car dealership and get a loan when i decide i'm going to buy a chev chevy cruze. i'm going to finance the chevy cruz. i get a certain interest rate. we've seen data if somebody looks different, if they're african american, latino, asian american, pacific islanders, they pay a higher interest rate. we know. that's what the data says. but this body from the last vote, it's pretty clear, they say that's all right. if the dealer wants to charge higher interest rates to people of color, that's okay. so it's bad enough, mr. president, that this -- we're

saying today this body is putting its stamp of approval saying it's okay to discriminate, charge higher interest rates to people of color. mr. president, as i said this in banking committee before and i -- and senator crapo has heard this many times, the zip code i live in in cleveland, ohio, my wife and i live in, 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. it's not just that that today's legislation would do. it threatens thousands more protections for workers and families vulnerable to repeal by congress. republicans have used the congressional review act -- just cite a few of them -- for repeal certain rules that would have given low-wage workers access to retirement plans. we talk about the dignity of work here, we talk about helping people save for the future, but, but one of the congressional

review act's would have given low-wage workers access to retirement plans, it takes it away. it en-- one of the other rules that was rolled back, to ensure contract employees had protections for their workers, for their workers regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation. it ensured women had a right to choose their own health care provider regardless of their form of insurance. congressional review act repeals on all those rules. they repealed a rule that would guarantee customer's right to a day in court when ripped off by a bank. wells fargo has a whole rap sheet of ripping off customers. but we say in this body you shouldn't have does that, mr. and mrs. fargo but we'll let you do that on individual contracts. if you're wropged by wells fargo or any of the big institutions, you don't get a day in court. that's what this body did. we know what exfax did.

equifax violated the privacy of pretty much half the people in north dakota, idaho, or this country. that's okay, equifax. just try not to do it again. we let them off the hook. 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 long as 20 years. in order to clarify haw laws work, federal agencies issue -- this is really in the weeds but you know we've got some pretty smart people here who figure out how to go in the weeds and find loopholes and exploit people and hurt -- frankly hurt the little guy, whether the little guy, whether she works on 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's 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 antibusiness decision, too, on their part -- that businesses want the predictability, want the certainty so they can follow the rules. under this crazy new plan, some of these really smart republicans, 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 like the children's health insurance program. they can undermine requirements and make sure federally funded

projects pay the local prevailing wage. today i went to breakfast with a number of iron workers and glazers and laborerrers and electricians and pipe fitters and others who work with their hands and make a damn good living with good benefits and retirement for their families. but you know what? they can use this new found rule that these very smart republican legislators, that they figured out how to exploit this rule. they can use that to undermine pay and beat back local prevailing wage laws. republicans have used the congressional review act to attack access to health care and worker and environmental protections. so it's no stretch they've done it before. it's no stretch they'd do it again only now there would be no limits to the type of agency actions they could target because they found this loophole and they can go back 20 years. the one we're 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're just so excited, this new loophole they found that they can go after people who don't have good lobby itions in washington. -- 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 to make a living in this country. what's the first thing they do? they make car loans -- it's clear what will happen. 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're legally discriminating, go ahead. we're not going to stop it. we created the consumer bureau to police wall street banks and other shady lenders who ripped off working families. under the last director from ohio i proudly say, the bureau returned $12 billion to 29 million americans who had been worked off by payday lenders and for-profit colleges. the consumer bureau used to be a cop on the beat to protect consumers. you want a consumer bureau because you've got the banks,

trillion dollar -- $2 trillion banks, j.p. morgan chase, wells fargo, they're trillion dollar banks, some of them $2 thil. so you have the -- $2 trillion. so you have the banks here that don't have a union, that don't have protection, that signed these contracts and for a loan or something. she don't know -- they don't know what the fine print says. you have a consumer bureau to protect those people. 29 million americans benefited from it just since its creation less than a decade ago. $12 billion they've saved. used to be a cop on the beat. they issued reports warning consumers about industries that weren't following the law. they brought dowf enforcement -- tough enforcement practices, 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. they're the two biggest investments. and you can legally discriminate

in this country because of the way somebody looks, because of their race. now we're saying it's okay. look at what's happened in this country because we've said that. just a few months ago the center for investigative journalism released a report showing that redlining still a problem in big mrn cities -- big american cities. the national fair housing allowance has conducted tests demonstrating that people of color were offered worst loans for cars than whites seeking to purchase the exact same vehicle. instead of working to root out this discrimination, you think that's all we'd do, democrats and republicans alike. instead we're making it easier for banks to turn customers away or take advantage of them based on the color of their skin. this is 2018 for god's sake. why would we still be doing that? this repeal would permanently weaken federal antidiscrimination laws. these laws have been the law of the land for the decade. these are the laws 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. 50 years ago last week. you'd think we'd want to strengthen it, not weaken it. i ask -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the scores of civil rights, consumer, environmental and other organizations that vehemently oppose this legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. merns financial reform -- americans financial reform call this a deeply troubling 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. i'm sure my friend from idaho, senator crapo does. we all do. most of them don't do this but some of them do and why are we allowing the some of them that do to continue to do this? if republicans are willing to use this loophole that a few really smart republicans uncovered, this loophole that they went down in the weeds and figured out how to exploit, if we're willing to use this -- if they're willing to use this

loophole to attack our basic right to equality, there may be no end to the other consumers protections they could repeal. big corporations could be free to take advantage of customers with little to rein them in, with fewer environmental protections. think of the progress we've made in this country because of consumer protection, because of strong safe drinking water laws, because of strong clean air laws. i live ten miles from lake erie. i no he what government -- i know what government in part because we passed strong laws for environmental protection. i know what we've done to clean up lake ear rip. the great lakes are 20% of the ground fresh water. i look at what we've done as a society in doing that. do we want to go back on this as the president cuts funding to clean up the great lakes? the e.p.a. 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 health care to families

and children. workers rely on guidance from the department of labor to make sure they're 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's probably going to be a line with all the lobbyists going in and out, pick up a ticket to say which special interest group can i do a favor for today and they'll find another. for the millions who lost their jobs, the mifls who lost their -- millions who lost their homes in the financial crisis a decade ago, the millions who are struggling to build their retirement with wages that haven't been growing for more than tben years, -- 20 years, it's already hard enough to get ahead. we should be making it easier for them, not harder. mr. president, i ask for a no vote.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will ca call the roll. -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, is senate in a quorum call? officer yes, it is. mr. thune: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, today is tax day, not typically a day of celebration for anyone, with maybe the exception of the i.r.s. you go this year -- but this year, mr. president, 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. and that means that they will be paying less in taxes and keeping more of their hardearned money. mr. president, if anything became clear during the last election cycle it was that the psyche economy was not working well for american families. in cnn exit polling, 62% of americans 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's no wonder that so many

hardworking americans felt like they'd been left behind. mr. president, 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 that 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 that the federal government takes from you in taxes, the less money that you have to pay bills or to buy a house or repair your car or save fofor 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 hardwo hardworking americans right away. and, second, we wanted to create the kind of economy that would give americans access to economic security over the long term. now, i'm 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 money of americans' income that's actually automatically free from taxation. we also acted to provide relief to 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. and we eliminated the individual mandate tax which disproportionately hit low-income families. we also made sure to protect key

retirement savings plans, 4 401(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 i.r.s.'s new withholding tables and its new withholding calculator, americans have already started seeing the new tax relief in their paychecks. and for a lot of americans, that's not all that they're seeing in their paychecks a lot of americans are also seeing pay increases or bonuses, thanks to the tax cuts and jobs act, which 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. and we knew that the only way to guarantee access to good jobs, wages, and opportunities was to make sure 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. and 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, for 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 freeze up cash that they can reinvest in their operations and workers. and we brought the united states international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial system so that american businesses are not operating at

a disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors. mr. president, the goal in all 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's exactly -- that is exactly what they're doing. in response to the tax cuts and jobs act, more than 500 companies -- 500 companies across this country and counting have announced good news for their workers. company after company has announced pay raise, bonuses, 401(k) match increases and other benefits. others are expanding their businesses, 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 for their future.

mr. president, 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. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to address the c.r.a. that we voted to proceed to and which we will vote on final passage tomorrow. it is a congressional review act 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. it has been from day one. first, it's the single individual director -- there's no bipartisan board, no need for consensus. there's one man rules. this one individual can only be

removed for cause. he's part of the executive branch, but the chief executive can't fire him. this makes no sense. and finally, the entire cfpb, this huge regulatory agency, is subject to no meaningful oversight. th 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. so an individual rather than a commission, no ability to remove except for cause, and not subject to appropriation. it's a recipe for a disaster, and that's just what we've had. it's not just my opinion, by the way. a three-judge panel of the d.c. circuit court of appeals ruled this structure is federally unconstitutional. i will quote briefly from their decision. they said, quote, quo 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 multimember independent agency. now 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 had, at least some structural reforms making the cfpb subject to appropriations so that congress has meaningful oversight. requiring that the major rules that 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 that we have a watchdog of the these are the least things that we should do. but our colleagues on the other side have not been willing to agree to any of them, and so we have this badly flawed agency. and it shouldn't be surprising

that a flawed structure leads to badly flawed policies, and that's why we're here discussing the c.r.a., mr. president. it's about the indirect auto lending guidance, as it's called, that the cfpb issued some time ago. let me explain a little bit about what this is. so indirect auto lending, what is that? well, direct aod lending is what you might think. it's when a consumer, a buyer, someone who wants to buy a car goes to about a -- to a bank and lends up financing. indirect financing is when the car dealer provides the arrangement of the financing for you. so the actual financing is ultimately performed by a lending institution, but the car dealer makes the arrangements. well, indirect auto loans are actually very good for consumers for a variety of reasons. number one, it's 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. secondly, there tends to be more competition for the consumers' loan. i mean, how many banks are you going to be able to realistically go out and visit when you are attempting to line up your financing? but the car dealer can routinely canvas 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's an important thing 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're buying, the trade-in value for the vehicle you are parting with. there is the value of other services you may negotiate for. and 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. so along comes the cfpb in december of 2013. they issue a bulletin that is an attempt to regulate the indirect auto lending. and in this, they warned lenders of a disparate impact liability. so let me explain briefly what this means. so, first of all, if lending policy is discriminatory, it's illegal. if the nature of the process, the documentation, the discrimination on the basis of any protected class -- and that would include race and sex and gender and age and other things -- if it's discriminatory, it's illegal. what the cfpb came along and said is even if the lending policy is not discriminatory, not on its face, it's not

discriminatory you can be liable for violation of the law if the cfpb thinks there is a protected class, some category of people who are paying on average a higher tr-t on -- higher interest rate on their loan. this is the disparate impact theory that the cfpb used in order to attempt the end the ability of auto dealers to discount loans as part of a negotiated transaction on a car purchase. why is this so problematic? i'd say two categories. first is the very process by which the cfpb came up with this rule. first of all, it's actually a guidance, not a rule making. what does that mean? that means they chose not to follow the law, the administrative procedures act, that requires an agency to go through a very systematic and public process of getting a lot of input and review on a proposed law, a proposed rule before it goes into effect. for a very good reason, we require regulators to get public input, to give experts and

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 neither did it, they consult with the other regulators as required by dodd-frank. nor did they do a cost-benefit analysis which is also required by dodd-frank. and they surprised the industry and the consumers by fundamentally reinterpreting how the antidiscrimination legislation would be interpreted. now why did they do this? why did they take this approach? why did they circumvent the administrative procedures act? it's a convenient way to avoid scrutiny. it's a convenient way to be able to impose one's will without public scrutiny, without input, without any analysis. so this is a very bad process and not surprisingly the outcome is equally bad. mr. president, the methodology they use to determine

discrimination on the basis of race is really amazing, since there is no information about the race of a borrower in a 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. what they did was they attempted to get -- they developed a methodology, a system where they attempt to guess the race of a car borrower -- i mean a car buyer who's financing the purchase of the car through a loan, and they tried to guess the race based on the last name and geography. so 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 concluded their error rate could be as high as 40%. so 40% of the people they would designate as african american are not. or 40% of the people they would designate as european american in fact are not. but it's not just that they got their guesstimate 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. and finally, and maybe in some ways most importantly, they willfully chose to ignore all the other components of the transaction. they alleged that someone was adversely impacted because they paid a higher rate of interest on the 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. well, this gets worse, mr. president, because the cfpb decided they needed to make an

example of someone so that they could terrorize the industry into ending this practice of discounting interest rates. and they found a good victim. allied bank was owned, about 74% was owned by the federal government at the time. they had an application for the fed to change their corporate organization, which they needed to do. they needed to complete that. otherwise they would have to shed a whole business line. it's a long, complicated story. suffice it to say that allied bank's future depended on the fed for which should have been a routine corporate structure. the fed made it clear they weren't going to grant that change until there was a settlement with the cfpb so phraeld -- allied bank was over the barrel. five days before the deadline which would have required allied

bank to divest itself of whole categories of business the cfpb shakes them down for $100 million. four days later the fed approved the application. the cfpb found its opportunity, made its example and it had a chilling effect on the market. so let me just wrap this up with what we're talking about here. it's an unaccountable, out-of-control agency that circumvented the proper rule making 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 allied bank. it didn't matter. now who ultimately pays the

price for this kind of behavior, mr. president? the very consumers that 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. and so consumers, under the cfpb's rule have fewer options, less flexibility, reduced access to credit and higher costs. that's why congress should overturn this, mr. president. this is our opportunity to set this right. the house voted 332-96 to repeal this rule. we can do this tomorrow. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have complained about the use of the c.r.a. in application to a guidance issue. our democratic colleagues

themselves attempted to do this exact same thing with respect to a chip guidance that was issued some years ago. and they remember perfectly okay with -- and they were perfectly okay with it then. i don't see why they can't be okay with it now. important to note what this resolution does not do. it does not change in any way the enforcement, legitimate enforcement of the equal credit opportunity act. it doesn't amend that act. it doesn't change regulation b and the enforcement of the equal credit opportunity act. it would simply continue as it had gone for 30-plus years. discrimination and credit providing has been illegal, will continue to be illegal when we successfully pass the c.r.a. i want to thank senator moore -- moran and will rooter from his staff. i want to thank terry van dorway from leader mcconnell's act for his help and urge my

colleagues to vote for this congressional review act. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: today is tax days, i rise to speak about the impact of what we have just done over the last 15 months to effect the future of our free enterprise system here 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

which we've just done this year in the senate. a few weeks ago we actually passed that bill. the reason that's important, mr. president, those four things will free up some, an estimated $6 trillion in capital, potential capital investment that has not been at work in our $20 trillion economy. what we've just done with regulation, energy, and taxes will free up, or have the opportunity to free up $6 trillion. that's huge in this economy. in the regulatory environment last year, well over 860 regulations were reversed. it's the largest in history. concrete steps have been taken to unleash our country's full energy potential including anwr, keystone pipeline, adjustments to the clean power plan, and waters of the u.s., 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 a and we all dreaded it. the day we had to turn our taxes in. this year is actually a day of good news in that this is the last time the american people will have to file their taxes using the old, outdated tax system that had become so archaic and so noncompetitive with the rest of the world. these chaplains to the tax code are -- these tanks to the -- these changes to the tax code are bringing relief. the average family will see their taxes reduced by about $2,000 a year, more than half. these changes are making american-made goods much more competitive on the world stage by making our corporate tax rate more competitive. the greatest hindrance, the greatest tax on the american workers in the years past was this archaically high corporate

tax rate. people said, well, we just pushed all those profits to the corporate entities. no, this was the greatest thing we could do for the american worker was to help them become more competitive with the rest of the world, give them a level playing field. that's what we did with this tax bill. we're already seeing results. over 2 million jobs have been created since president trump took office. consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. as an ex-retailer, i've watched this index. this is phenomenal t at a isn't-year high. it bodes well for the future of what we've just done. c.e.o. confidence is at a high. profits have been unlocked and are available now for capital investment back in this country. and, yes, we already see public corporations making public statements in their quarterly earnings reviews about this capital investment plan that they're laying out.

we see investment increases being announced every month from public companies in america today. there's no question that businesses are beginning to bring those profits home and investing in our economy. over 4 million americans have received bonus in addition 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 investment in their company. 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. and most of these companies who have made these announcements about their own financial well-being and those of their employees have also dramatically increased their contributions to those philanthrophy efforts and trust funds. in my home state of georgia, dozens of companies are taking action because of these changes to the tax code and they're

making these statements publicly. you go to any public corporation today that's in their latest quarterly return and look at what they're saying about how this tax change effects their business and the future of their employees. this is huge. it's also huge for the entire country because we're much more competitive today than we have been. for years this 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 do to unleash economic growth this year. and we're just getting started. i've been through some of these large turnarounds. and i would characterize this it is a a megaturnaround. after years of low economic growth in u.s. history, we are now on the rebound. that's so important for the future of our country. we have a $21 trillion debt

today, mr. president. i-as you know. and one of the things we have to do to dig our way out of that is to get our economy healthy again. one percent growth in g.d.p. is documented by the c.b.o., congressional budget office, to yield 3 $$300 billion of federal revenue every year. that's $3 trillion over the next decade. so with the projection that we're going to add $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade just because of decisions made over the last decade, we can see that just growing the economy alone is not enough to solve this debt crisis. but there are some in this body who have argued that this is nothing but a boondoggle, it was nothing but a huge deficit-increasing exercise. what wasn't considered by c.b.o. was the long-term return on investment or the learn 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, c.b.o. forgot or never -- or disagreed with using the impact of foreign direct investment, which i really just don't understand. i'm proud 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 health care costs, not just the insurance of it. it 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's working at a business pace, not a bureaucratic pace. and he's committed to keeping up the positive momentum. this year the pressure is on the

other side because right now we're 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. infrastructure, both sides believe, for different reasons, why we need to be investing in infrastructure. but i remind my colleagues in this body. it was just in 2011 when it government threw $1 trillion at our economy and i would debate the benefit of that particular investment. because it wasn't against 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, create a level playing field around the world to help our trade situation, and that's what the president is trying to do right now is to create a more level playing field, to grow our

economy, fix our budget process, and deal with the spending issues that we have here at home. i'm excited to be part of this select budget committee that is charged with changing the way we fund the federal government every year. i'm hopeful that that will lead to a new budget process that will allow us to avoid the continuing resolutions in the omnibuses where five or six people get into a room and decide how to spend $1 trillion. we knew this was the first step toest going it going. i'm delighted with the impact that it's having on our economy today. with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess until 5:30 p.m. today. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess until 5:30 p.m.er david

cameron testifies about global security. unfoldsn, where history daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> tonight a confirmation hearing for president trump's nominees to be the next commanders of your specific command and northern commit the

north american aerospace defense command. this nominee spoke earlier today in front of the senate armed services committee. the drink will air tonight at night eastern on c-span. on c-span2 the senate foreign relations committee will hold a hearing on the future of use policy with yemen. witnesses from the state department and the pentagon look at the u.s. and better aid people in yemen and why spend large cholera outbreaks across the country. you could see that tonight at nine eastern on c-span2. >> tomorrow a hearing on u.s. policy in the middle east. state department officials are expected to testify on the syrian civil war and the political conflict in yemen. the hearings held by the house foreign affairs committee and don't become live tomorrow at 1. congressional democrats joined activists for tax pellet outside the u.s. capitol. they spoke against the recent tax reform law and they plan to