[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5701-S5705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Health Care Reform
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, there has been some confusion about the
President's health care law recently, so I come to the floor to try to
clear up one point.
Just before the Fourth of July holiday, the Obama administration
admitted to the world that its health care law is not working out
according to plan. It did it in an unusual way--in a blog post--right
before the Fourth of July holiday, but yet it is known to the world. By
choosing to delay the law's employer mandate, the President conceded it
would place a tremendous burden on America's job creators.
Then, just this past Sunday, the Senate majority leader went on
``Meet the Press,'' on television, and said: ``ObamaCare has been
wonderful for America.'' Wonderful for America? Senator Reid's comments
demonstrate once again that Democrats in Washington--the people who
voted for this law--are not listening to the American people.
I hear it when I return home to Wyoming every weekend. I did this
past weekend. I hear it as Members of the Senate do when they talk to
friends from home. I heard it today from people from Gillette and
Evanston and Cody that this health care law is unraveling. So I just
want to make a couple of things clear to everyone.
After 3\1/2\ years, we know the Obama health care law is not working.
It is a train wreck. If the law was wonderful, it wouldn't increase
premiums. It wouldn't shrink paychecks. It wouldn't discourage job
creation. If the law was wonderful, we wouldn't put the feared IRS as
the enforcer of the health care law. If the law was wonderful, the
administration wouldn't have delayed one of its most critical parts. It
is clear to me that even President Obama does not share Senator Reid's
opinion that the health care law is wonderful.
This law is not wonderful for America. It is obviously terrible for
America's job creators. It is also terrible for many people trying to
make a living in this country.
There was an article on the front page of the New York Times
recently--Wednesday, July 10--with the headline: ``At Restaurant, Delay
Is Help on Health Law.'' The delay is a help.
This article--front page, above the fold of the New York Times--
looked at
[[Page S5702]]
a small Maryland restaurant called the Shanty Grille. What is going on
at that restaurant makes the case better than any actuarial study, any
sort of charts or any economic model ever could because it is a story
about real people and their lives. The article talked about how the law
was hurting everyone from the owner of the restaurant to the uninsured
waiter, to the chef who has insurance. All of them were hurt by this
health care law. Because for each of these people and for millions of
others similar to them across the country, the reality of health care
reform is that it has fallen far short of the President's many
promises.
According to this article in the New York Times, the restaurant's
owner is on a pace to finally this year turn a profit. It will be the
first profit since the economic downturn a number of years ago. Four
years after the recession ended, he is finally set to recover and get
back into the black. If he has to provide expensive Washington-
approved, Washington-mandated health insurance for every employee,
though, that profit will quickly evaporate. So that would certainly
harm this employer.
What about the employees? Let's talk about the people this is
designed to help. It turns out the younger workers at the restaurant
actually aren't too interested in having this health insurance
coverage. They say they would rather have more money in their paychecks
so they could decide how they want to spend it, not how the President
thinks they should spend it. So they stand to lose out once the law's
individual mandate starts in January because they are going to have to
go out and buy insurance which may be much more than they want or need
or can afford.
The employees at the restaurant who already have health insurance are
worried too. They are concerned they will not be able to keep their
current coverage. When the President stopped his disastrous employer
mandate, I believe he actually made the right decision, but I have some
doubts about his reasoning. I think this was purely for political
reasons.
Regardless of how and why the President made the decision, a 1-year
delay in this one policy doesn't solve the problem; it only extends the
problem.
First, this restaurant and other small businesses can't afford and
can't expand or hire more staff because they still face the mandate in
2015. Actually, the final line in this article on the front page of the
New York Times, when we carry over and read the end of it, says: We are
not going to expand. ``No more expansion.''
Second, many businesses are cutting back workers to part-time status
because of the health care law. President Obama has had nothing to say
to those Americans looking for full-time work but trapped in a part-
time job, and part-time is defined by the health care law, which is
different than most Americans think of or define part-time work.
Third, the law still requires all of the employees, as with nearly
everyone else in America, that they have to buy pricey health insurance
starting January 1. That is a problem for the President and he knows
it.
Here is how an article in Politico put it this past weekend. This
article is entitled ``ObamaCare's Missing Mandate.'' It says:
The massive coast-to-coast campaign to get people to sign
up for ObamaCare is light on mentions of one central element:
The widely disliked individual mandate.
The Politico article goes on to say:
Poll after poll has found that Americans don't like being
told they have to get insurance or face a penalty. So the
groups doing outreach don't plan to draw much attention to
it.
The employer mandate has collapsed. The individual mandate is
unpopular, so they just don't want to talk about it.
A lot of the people who do have to buy this new Washington-mandated,
Washington-approved insurance will have to buy it through the
government exchanges. Of course, these may not be ready on time. There
are 77 days left for these to be ready. Even if they are up and running
by the deadline, we have seen ample evidence that premiums will be much
higher than they were before the mandate. That is especially true for
young healthy adults who the President expects to pay more in order to
help older sicker people pay less. But a lot of younger healthier
people are going to have to pay more for that one older sicker person.
These weren't the kinds of reforms Democrats promised when they were
forcing this plan through Congress on strictly party-line votes. During
the debate, Republicans made suggestions to improve the health care
law, but we were shut out of the backrooms where the Democrats struck
their deals.
In the end Democrats drafted their law so badly that the negative
side effects and unintended consequences were inevitable. The New York
Times article shows how some of these side effects are hurting millions
of Americans--not just those working at the restaurant, including the
restaurant owner, in Maryland.
We all know President Obama likes to hold photo ops with people who
he says are helped by the law. It is time for him to meet with people
such as the ones featured on the front page of the New York Times--
people who are being hurt by his health care law. It is time for the
President to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans to truly talk
about how we can reform health care in this country. Delaying the
employer mandate for 1 year is not enough. It doesn't eliminate the
burdens of this costly law.
The House is scheduled to vote this week to delay the individual
mandate. The Senate should do the same. It is time for the President
and for Senator Reid to listen to the victims of ObamaCare.
President Obama was right to recognize his health care law is not
working out. Senator Reid was totally wrong because ObamaCare is not
wonderful for America. It is turning into a costly failure. The only
appropriate course at this point is to permanently delay implementing
the rest of the law and to replace it with reform that works.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate held a first of a
series of cloture votes on controversial nominations by voting to
invoke cloture on the nominee to be the Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. This agency is unlike any other Federal
agency. Under its current structure, the CFPB has very broad discretion
but very little in terms of executive or congressional oversight.
It is not a debate about whether Republicans in the Senate support
consumer protection, as some would portray it. Both sides agree
everyone benefits from a mortgage industry and marketplace free of
fraud and other deceptive, exploitive practices.
Republicans did not object to consumer protection when it was placed
in each of the prudential banking regulators. In fact, bills aimed
specifically at consumer protection passed with an overwhelming
majority in the Senate. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
of 2003 passed 95 to 2, and the Credit CARD Act of 2009 passed 90 to 5.
During the Dodd-Frank debate, the key point of contention was not the
value of consumer protection but, rather, the Bureau's design.
One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that we need a
supervisory program that looks and considers how safety, soundness, and
consumer protection work together to create a better functioning
financial system. What Republicans have been asking for is that the
Bureau be restructured in the same way as other similarly situated
financial regulators, with accountability and transparency to Congress
and to the taxpayers.
As outlined in two letters to the President sent by Republican
Senators in May 2011 and this past February, the changes highlighted
are not new. In fact, they exist in the current Federal regulatory
landscape. One of the key changes we seek is the establishment of a
board of directors to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
with staggered terms.
This is the structure of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
[[Page S5703]]
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and the Federal Reserve.
A board of directors would allow for the consideration of multiple
viewpoints in decisionmaking and would reduce the potential for
politicization of regulations.
Indeed, the administration originally supported a board of directors
for the Bureau. In 2009, the Obama administration proposed a stand-
alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency with a board of directors
funded through the congressional appropriations process. The Bureau
also should be subject to the congressional appropriations process,
rather than, as the Dodd-Frank legislation did, to fund it through the
Federal Reserve with no review by Congress.
While Mr. Cordray stated that he would come and testify before the
Appropriations Committee, this is quite different than Congress being
able to oversee how the monies that the agency utilizes are spent. For
example, the CFPB intends to spend close to $100 million to renovate
its current headquarters. This amount is double the amount that the
Government Services Administration has for property acquisition and
renovation in any 1 year.
Finally, consumer protection cannot and must not be detached from
prudential regulation. Although the Bureau must consult with other
prudential regulators before finalizing its rulemaking, the Bureau can
simply disregard their advice.
By establishing a solid safety and soundness check for prudential
regulation, the link and coordination between prudential supervision
and protection would be strengthened by allowing potential regulators
to provide meaningful input into the CFPB's actions and proposals. Such
collaboration will only strengthen our financial system, not weaken
consumer protection.
Without it, the CFPB and prudential regulators may issue rules that
result in confusion for the regulated entities, as has already been the
case with conflicting guidance for private student loans, and the many
questions raised by the qualified mortgage final rule.
The Dodd-Frank solution was to have the Financial Stability Oversight
Council review certain CFPB actions, but it set the threshold at two-
thirds of the FSOC members. This very high threshold before the FSOC
can act renders its veto virtually meaningless.
Since the beginning of this year, I have encountered a number of
items with the CFPB that are a cause of concern and warrant greater
scrutiny, but it is the Federal agency's data collection initiative
that is the most disturbing to me. Recently, we learned from press
accounts--not from the agency but from press accounts--that the CFPB
was spending tens of millions of dollars to collect Americans' credit
data. We have learned from the recent IRS, Associated Press, and NSA
scandals what happens when government agencies cross the line and watch
our citizens instead of watching out for them. There is a trust deficit
in government today.
During the last several months, I have raised significant concerns
with the CFPB's data collection efforts. I have been told that the
Bureau needs big data to level the playing field. However, the Bureau's
efforts go far beyond simply leveling the playing field. Unfortunately,
for an agency that prides itself on transparency, I have encountered
very little concrete answers to very basic questions.
For example, I have asked the Bureau on three occasions to give me
information on the number of Americans' credit accounts that the CFPB
is currently monitoring. In response, the CFPB said the information was
confidential and could not be supplied.
Information coming from last week's hearing in the House Financial
Services Committee indicates that the CFPB is undertaking unprecedented
data collection on possibly hundreds of millions of Americans'
accounts, possibly as many as 900 million credit card accounts in the
United States. The size of this data collection and the amount of money
being spent by the agency are a cause of concern and should be for
those Americans whose financial and credit data is being sent to the
Bureau each and every single month.
The CFPB is collecting credit card account data, bank account data,
mortgage data, and student loan data. In addition, the Bureau has hired
third parties to act as its agent to collect, aggregate, and produce
consumer credit data on behalf of the agency. Some contracts even
contain instructions to follow specific consumer accounts over time.
This ultimately allows the CFPB to monitor, on a monthly basis, an
individual consumer's financial activity. Some of the data collected
and provided to the CFPB monthly includes account balances, ZIP Code+4
location data, the year of birth, and other demographic information.
Thus, the CFPB can know how much you owe, how much money you have, how
much you pay each month, and where you live within a few blocks.
The Bureau has stated publicly on several occasions that it does not
collect personally identifiable information other than the voluntary
personally identifiable information consumers submit to the Consumer
Complaint Database and in supervisory exams. However, two documents
drafted by the CFPB seem to raise doubts about this Federal agency's
actions.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the CFPB's System of Records
Notice of November 2012 for the consumer and market research database
states that some of the collected data ``will be personally
identifiable information.'' In addition, a CFPB contract with a third
party data aggregator states:
Most, if not all, of the data will be confidential
supervisory information, and some of the data will contain
sensitive Personal Identifiable Information (PII).
Questions still remain about what type of personal information is
collected by the CFPB and what is collected by the agency's
contractors. But without the structural changes to the agency that we
are asking for, it is hard to get answers to the question.
At the hearing in the House last week, a CFPB official was unable to
state how many agency employees have access to this enormous amount of
credit data. He was also unaware of any law which is used when
employees access the data.
I also question whether the Bureau has put in proper policies and
procedures to prevent the data from being reengineered and reverse
engineered. I consider these to be very serious privacy concerns by the
very agency that was created to watch out for consumers, not to watch
consumers.
Banks constantly worry about cyber attacks. Recent news reports have
run stories about the Federal Reserve and the IRS being susceptible to
cyber attacks.
What assurances do we have from the CFPB that these massive troves of
consumer credit information are safe? Data safety is particularly of
concern, given that both the GAO and the CFPB's inspector general have
found weaknesses in the CFPB data security programs and policies.
Because I was unable to get sufficient answers out of the CFPB, I
turned to the Government Accountability Office and requested that it
look into the agency's data collection and security efforts. That
review is now underway.
With regard to the regulatory role of the agency, in the past 2 years
the Bureau has issued numerous new rulemakings, resulting in
significant cumulative burdens for affected institutions, especially
small and community banks that often only have a handful of employees.
Remember, there is no board directing this agency. There is no board to
whom the Director of the agency responds. One single individual has
been given the authority in this statute, without oversight by Congress
of his or her budget, to single-handedly issue rules and regulations.
In the span of 10 days this past January, the CFPB issued more than
3,500 pages of final rules affecting mortgage markets and other
industries. This represents more than 1 million total words of
regulatory text. When I asked at an April hearing about the
overwhelming number of regulations the Bureau issued in 1 single month,
I was told that there were ``less than 100 pages of rules'' when
translated into the Federal Register.
Well, 100 pages of rules is a lot, but this ignores the more than
2,500 pages of guidance, analysis, and interpretations--which are all
admissible in court--and all of which are required reading for anyone
who has to comply with this complex web of rules.
[[Page S5704]]
In order to understand and comply with these regulations,
institutions are forced to hire lawyers and compliance officers, tying
up resources that could be better spent on growing business, creating
jobs, and boosting the economy. Again, recall that the connection
between safety and soundness regulations was severed with the creation
of this agency.
Instead, these additional compliance costs are inevitably passed on
to the consumers, which is especially harmful during a time of high
unemployment and sluggish economic growth. If we were convinced that
the agency was at least protecting consumers rather than collecting
data on all individual Americans who have credit cards, student loans,
mortgages, or bank accounts, then perhaps we could at least engage in a
discussion or a debate about whether the agency's actions are
appropriate and effective.
I am concerned that without the strong cost-benefit analysis and
input from the small business panels in crafting rules, even well-
intentioned rules could make consumer credit more expensive and less
affordable.
Another concern I have with the CFPB is the enactment of policy
changes outside of the established notice-and-comment rulemaking
process.
In March, the CFPB posted a legal bulletin on its blog instructing
auto lenders to adjust compensation practices to avoid violating fair
lending laws. The bulletin includes significant legal interpretations
and suggests that the Bureau may utilize its enforcement powers to
ensure that lenders adhere to its guidance.
The only example the CFPB uses in this bulletin on how auto lenders
can effectively comply with fair lending laws is flat pricing, as is
interpreted by many, that any other type of pricing will be a clear
violation in the CFPB's eyes. If the CFPB intends to make major policy
changes, then it needs to go through a regular notice-and-comment
rulemaking, not a blog post.
This bulletin also, frankly, represents a backdoor attempt by the
CFPB to regulate auto dealers, a group that is explicitly exempted from
the CFPB's regulatory purview by the Dodd-Frank legislation that
created the agency, in what appears to be yet another example of CFPB's
overreach.
In conclusion, I will continue to work toward oversight of the agency
to ensure accountability and transparency for the American people.
Those who are trying to paint our demands as being extraordinary need
to look at the extraordinary data collection and actions of this agency
and look at our regulatory landscape with similarly situated financial
regulators.
Those who are trying to portray these demands as another attempt to
water down consumer protection need to realize that consumer protection
divested from safety and soundness does not make for a better financial
system or for greater benefit to consumers.
We found in our review of the CFPB that the agency does have serious
problems in a number of different areas. The lack of prompt and
complete responses from the agency regarding its big data collection of
Americans' credit accounts is very troubling but is indicative of the
lack of transparency established when this agency was created.
The expenditure of nearly $100 million for building renovations is
extremely troubling in these tight economic times.
While the confirmation of the nominee is now all but certain, there
remains significant work and oversight to ensure the CFPB is an
accountable agency and that it is transparent in its actions for all
Americans to see.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, did my friend from Idaho suggest the absence
of a quorum?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, he did not.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will talk for a minute about the National
Labor Relations Board nominees.
The NLRB has helped to protect the rights and safety of workers for
about 80 years. It is a vitally important watchdog for working
Americans. It is also important for employers. It also protects
employers. But unless we act before the Senate recess in August, the
NLRB will lose its ability to operate. It will fail to have a quorum so
it can't work or be effective. So the confirmation of full membership
at the NLRB is a priority.
I understand Republican Senators were frustrated by President Obama's
recess appointment of two members to the NLRB. I accept that. No one
has raised any questions, however, about these two good people--Griffin
and Block. They are fine public servants and the record should be
spread with that fact. Republicans have insisted on the President's
nominating new people, and he has done that. It is a right they have,
and this is a compromise that was reached.
Republican Senators have also committed that the Senate will confirm
these new nominees quickly, certainly before the end of this month--the
month of July. To that end, I met earlier with Senators Harkin and
Lamar Alexander, the chairman and ranking member of that big HELP
Committee, and they have given me their word they are going to file a
notice tonight that the committee will hold a hearing on these nominees
on Tuesday, they will then have a markup on Wednesday, and we intend to
turn to these nominees next Thursday.
I have talked with the people at the White House, and I am confident
these nominees will be staunch advocates for the NLRB--for the rights
and safety of workers, and for employers that are also protected with
this legislation. So when the Senate confirms them, the NLRB will once
again have a full team to protect the rights of workers--the workers in
West Virginia, workers in Nevada, and all over the country--the same
thing they have done for 80 years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions with
respect to Calendar Nos. 100, 101, and 104 be withdrawn; that the vote
on the confirmation of the Cordray nomination occur at 5 p.m. today;
that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or
debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related
statements be printed in the Record; and President Obama be immediately
notified of the Senate's action; finally, that the vote on the motion
to invoke cloture on the Hochberg nomination occur at 10 a.m. tomorrow,
Wednesday, July 17.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection?
Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Ex.]
YEAS--66
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Coons
Corker
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--34
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chiesa
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
[[Page S5705]]
Enzi
Fischer
Grassley
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Under the previous order, the
motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The majority leader is recognized.
____________________