[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 41 (Thursday, March 8, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1529-S1565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ECONOMIC GROWTH, REGULATORY RELIEF, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2155, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2155) to promote economic growth, provide
tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections,
and for other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell (for Crapo) amendment No. 2151, in the nature of
a substitute.
Crapo amendment No. 2152 (to amendment No. 2151), of a
perfecting nature.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Tribute to Gary Endicott
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, this morning, I would like to
recognize a remarkable Senate career that is drawing to a close.
Gary Endicott has served in the Office of the Legislative Counsel for
37 years. Since his appointment as the legislative counsel of the
Senate in 2015, he has directed that office and has done so with
distinction. Now he is embarking on a well-earned retirement. After
nearly four decades of service to this body, tomorrow is Gary's last
day.
Much has changed during the time Gary has been with us. Over the
years, Senators and staff have asked more and more of the legislative
counsel's office, but thanks in large part to Gary's hard work and then
to his leadership, we can always rely on his team for meticulous
professionalism and expertise.
I understand Gary is headed back to his native Midwest. He departs
with our gratitude and our best wishes for him and for his family.
Mr. President, on another matter, the Dodd-Frank law became effective
in 2010. It ostensibly targeted banks that were deemed too big to fail,
but 7\1/2\ years later, Dodd-Frank has proven to be far too blunt an
instrument. For one thing, it has imposed a crushing regulatory burden
on small community banks and credit unions. Rather than fixing too big
to fail, Dodd-Frank has threatened to make many of these Main Street
mainstays too small to succeed.
This is especially problematic because of the central role local
financial institutions play in each of their communities. Local lenders
provide a majority of small business loans and nearly three-quarters of
agricultural loans, and in low-income communities, when a local bank
closes, research suggests that loans to nearby small businesses plummet
by 40 percent.
With farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and vulnerable communities,
Americans need community banks, and they need credit unions, but Dodd-
Frank is making it harder for these institutions to survive. Millions
of Americans, from rural areas to inner cities, now find themselves in
what researchers call banking deserts. Fortunately, help is on the way.
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Crapo, Democrats and Republicans
[[Page S1530]]
have joined together to cosponsor a modest but important bill that
would streamline the obstacles that are tripping up these smaller
institutions. It is a commonsense, compromise measure, and Senators do
not need to resolve all of our differences on Dodd-Frank in order to
unite behind it. I look forward to voting to pass these reforms very
soon.
Tax Reform
Mr. President, on a final matter, as I have discussed, a number of
America's largest employers are already reinvesting their tax reform
savings in bonuses, pay raises, and new benefits for their employees.
Higher take-home pay and lower tax rates are helping families cover
today's expenses and save for the future.
In Nebraska, the Lincoln Journal Star reports that hometown companies
Nelnet and Pinnacle Bank have awarded tax reform bonuses to thousands
of workers. In Iowa, the Des Moines Register reports that utilities
will pass along $147 million in tax reform savings to their customers.
Acadia Healthcare, with operations in my home State of Kentucky, has
announced that tax reform will enable it to build additional facilities
on the frontlines of the opioid epidemic.
This week, Vice President Pence has been on the road, hearing how tax
reform is changing Americans' lives and livelihoods for the better. He
visited all three of those States and listened to workers and small
business owners.
It is interesting, though. The huge number of early tax reform
success stories is not getting the applause it deserves from over here
on the other side of the aisle. Every one of my Democratic colleagues
in the House and in the Senate made the political calculation to vote
along party lines and try to sink tax reform--every single one of them
in the House and the Senate. Fortunately, those efforts failed.
Yet, even with tax reform now as the law of the land, it seems my
Democratic friends are so unwilling to admit their mistake that they
would rather try to sabotage the law that is already helping families
and making American job creators more competitive. Just yesterday, for
example, Senate Democrats announced they would like to spend $1
trillion of taxpayer money and roll back Americans' brandnew tax cuts
while they are at it.
This popular, new tax bill has been in effect for a couple of months,
and they want to roll it back already, take the money, and spend it.
There they go again. They just can't help themselves. To tax more,
spend more, take money away from American families, and give it to the
Federal Government is a familiar refrain from our Democratic friends.
Even amidst this tidal wave of good news from tax reform, even in the
face of higher take-home pay, new jobs, new investments, raises, worker
bonuses, and foreign competitors like China getting nervous, Democrats
just can't help themselves. It must be in their DNA. They can't resist
turning back to their old, top-down, tax-and-spend playbook.
By lowering the tax burden on companies, large and small, America
turned on a bright neon sign that is telling the world we are open for
business. Democrats want to unplug it. By lowering middle-class rates
and expanding deductions, we gave families all across the country more
breathing room to save or pay their bills. Democrats want to claw that
money back.
Fortunately, for the American people, the Republicans in the House,
the Senate, and the White House will not let them take back your tax
relief, your lower utility rates, your bonuses, or your new
opportunities. We are proud that we took money out of Washington's
pocket and put it back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, and
that is exactly where it is going to stay.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Tariffs
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, later this afternoon President Trump
plans to announce sweeping steel and aluminum tariffs. Let me say once
again, I believe the President's instincts on China are correct. All
those who are trying to push him away from his instincts will allow
China over the next decade to become the dominant economic power and
greatly hurt American jobs and American prosperity as well. So I would
say: Mr. President, stick to your instincts.
But while the President's instincts are correct, the execution on
these tariffs is poor. That is the difference here--not the instinct,
not that we shouldn't go after China, and not that we have to do more
to bolster American wealth and American workers against rapacious
policies of China's. China will stop at nothing, nothing, nothing, to
steal our intellectual property and to manipulate its currency to
exclude American companies from being there.
China has been rapacious about trade, and I have spoken about this
problem for years. Early on--I think it was 2004 or 2005--Senator
Graham and I discovered that China was manipulating its currency. I
heard it from Crucible steel up in Syracuse, NY.
The great thinkers said: They don't manipulate their currency. This
is protectionist.
In the same week--I was quite proud of this--the New York Times
editorial board, which is liberal, and the Wall Street Journal
editorial board, which is conservative, both said: There is no such
thing as currency manipulation, and Schumer and Graham ought to back
off.
Of course, we proved to be right on that and other issues.
China is rapacious. If we don't stop China, America will be a weaker
place with fewer good-paying jobs, with less wealth, less strength, and
we probably won't stay the greatest country in the world--although we
deserve to because we play by the rules.
President Trump has identified the right opponent--China--much better
than both the Obama and Bush administrations did. Both Democrats and
Republicans have been blind to this issue, and Trump isn't. Good. But I
would say to the President: Don't swing blindly and wildly at our foe,
China. Establish a well-placed jab at China. Set them back. Let them
know we mean business.
President Trump ought to rethink his plan so it actually achieves
what he says he wants it to achieve.
U.S. steel and aluminum workers have been battling heavily subsidized
products from China for decades. I know. I have Nucor in my State, in
Auburn and in Chemung County. On aluminum, I have Alcoa in my State, in
Massena. Our steel and aluminum workers deserve a more level playing
field against these countries like China that heavily subsidize their
products or other countries that purchase Chinese steel at artificially
low prices and ship it to the United States. A targeted trade action
against China would be very helpful not only in providing relief for
the steel and aluminum workers in New York and around the country, but
it would send a strong shot across the bow to China for the first time
in decades: We mean business. We are not going to let you prey on us
any longer.
Targeted trade against China and against countries that allow China
to sell them steel at artificially low prices and then send it here, go
after them, but instead of getting right at China, the President's
across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other
domestic industries. I not only have steelworkers in Upstate New York,
I have a lot of autoworkers. For instance, we are so proud of the GM
plant in Tonawanda near Buffalo and the Ford stamping plant also in
Western New York. We are so proud of our agriculture.
Incidentally, the President is right, Canada has put in certain
restrictions on American dairy going to Canada that has hurt companies
like the Cayuga cooperative in Central New York and O-AT-KA in Genesee
County.
We have to protect and help our workers in auto manufacturing and our
farmers who do export and who do good things. China doesn't let our
auto products in, in a fair way, but other countries do--Canada does.
So the President's proposal does more harm to Europe and other allies
[[Page S1531]]
like Canada than it does to China. That is what is wrong with it. It is
so typical of this White House. Even when they have a good idea, they
mess it up because they don't think it through, and the President acts
only by his instincts. You have to act by your instincts and put a
thought process on top of it.
The goal of the President to go after China was not really achieved
very well in his proposal. The haphazard way these tariffs were put
together has caused policy to miss the mark. It seems no one is at home
in the White House right now. President Trump makes up his mind one
day, changes it the next, and meanwhile trade policies, foreign
policies, gun policies, immigration policies are all in chaos because
he says one thing one day and another thing the next. So we need the
President to follow his instincts but then allow the people who know
this issue to craft something smart.
The President and I may agree on trade. As I said, we are closer on
this issue than I have been with either the Bush or Obama
administrations, but the slapdash way these tariffs were constructed
have few of us cheering, even those of us who really have wanted to go
after China long before politics was a gleam in President Trump's eye.
Well, maybe that is not true; it may have been a gleam in his eye but
before he ran for anything.
I strongly urge the President to rethink these tariffs and focus his
policy more directly at China and countries that ship cheap Chinese
steel to the United States. On the flip side, I am sure some of our
business interests will tell the President do nothing on trade.
The chamber of commerce--they are interested in the bottom-line
profits of their big companies, and they don't care if they make those
profits at the expense of American workers. They are not a barometer
here, and President Trump is right to ignore them. We have to be smart
about this--not just tough, but tough and smart. We need to get tough
and smart on China, and the right approach is targeted action against
China's most flagrant abuses.
Republican Tax Bill
Mr. President, on tax, since the Republican tax bill passed last
year, nearly every day there has been a new story about a corporation
choosing to pass along the savings from the tax law to wealthy
shareholders and corporate executives because they buy back their
stocks. They use this new tax money not to help their workers but to
buy back their stocks. In January, there was an initial flurry of all
these bonuses. They have been totally overwhelmed with stock buybacks.
What Democrats said is proving to be true. The vast majority of this
tax break is for the wealthy, by the wealthy, used by the wealthy to
help themselves, not help workers. That has been the history when you
give these corporations lots of money, when they have so much money
already, without pointing it in the direction of helping workers.
Yesterday, Chevron joined the parade of those with stock buybacks. It
was Chevron who announced that while it was making no changes to
workers' compensation or benefits, it would be restarting its dormant
stock repurchasing program. Do you know how much Chevron got from this
tax bill? Mr. President, $2 billion. Do you know how much they are
giving their workers--or benefits--out of that $2 billion? Nothing.
Nothing as of now. Do you know what they are using it for? Stock
buybacks. Let our Republican friends come to the floor and defend those
stock buybacks. Let them do that.
Today, another oil company, Hess, announced it would be purchasing
back $1 billion of its stock by the end of the year. Since the start of
2018, just in the last few months, the cumulative total of share
buybacks has passed $200 billion. Let me repeat that, $200 billion has
been used for stock buybacks. The month of February set the 1-month
record for share buybacks, and analysts at JPMorgan--hardly a liberal
think tank--says they ``expect total buybacks in 2018 to surpass $800
billion, way up from the $530 billion last year and demolishing 2007's
all-time high that came in a bit below $700 billion.'' That is not
Chuck Schumer or CPAC or any of these liberal think tanks, that is
JPMorgan Chase.
So our poor Republican friends had hoped this tax bill would send
them on a trajectory to win elections and, by February, the numbers are
starting to turn against them again. Look at the Quinnipiac poll of
yesterday. Why? Because, as this tax bill plays out, what Democrats
said all along; that the vast majority of the benefits are going to the
wealthy, it increases the deficit, and it increases the clarion call of
many on the Republican side to cut Medicare and Social Security to pay
for the deficit they created--it is not going over too well. We will
match our argument against theirs now in October and November. We are
confident we are going to win that argument, and that is why already
the enthusiasm about this tax bill is fading.
The massive deluge of corporate share buybacks is proving to be the
principal legacy of the Republican tax bill--not benefits to workers,
not bonuses, not wage increases, not even new equipment or investment
in R&D. I would welcome that. Nope, corporations are spending the bulk
of the savings from the tax bill on themselves, their corporate
executives, and their wealthy shareholders.
Guess how much of the capital companies have earned from the tax bill
has been allocated to their employees, the workers who were going to
get such huge benefits from this bill--6 percent. No, no, it is not 60;
it is 6. Sixty is the percentage that has gone back to corporations in
the form of stock buybacks--a 10-to-1 ratio. It doesn't make much
sense. The American public is beginning to realize that. Those are the
numbers according to Just Capital.
As I said, the American people are starting to catch wind of the
truth. Three separate polls yesterday--I mentioned Quinnipiac, and
there are evidently two others. Three separate polls show the
popularity of the Republican tax bill was significantly underwater and
has lost ground since the last round of polling. I predict those
numbers will continue to slip as more Americans learn that their hard-
earned taxpayer dollars were used to give a tax break to corporations
who hoard the savings for themselves. It is no wonder their candidate
in a hard-fought race in Southwest Pennsylvania has abandoned the tax
argument. It is not going over well with his working-class constituents
because they get a tiny, little bit, and everyone else gets so much
more.
Mr. President, Democrats have a plan to rein in these buybacks and
put the middle class first. Yesterday, Senator Baldwin and I announced
an amendment to the pending banking bill that would rein in corporate
buybacks by giving the SEC the authority to reject buybacks that come
at the expense of workers. Who will object to that? I hope not my
colleagues. They say the buybacks will benefit workers, so they
shouldn't be objecting to our bill. Senator Baldwin's bill and my bill
would require company boards and their executives to put their money
where their mouth is and certify that the buyback is in the best long-
term financial interest of the company.
We are going to make this one of the top amendments to the banking
bill, and I hope it gains Republican support. If Republicans mean what
they say about their tax bill helping workers, they should join Senator
Baldwin's amendment. The glut of corporate share buybacks highlights
precisely how the corporate tax cut in the Republican bill is being put
to ill use. Rather than stimulating the economy, creating jobs, or
raising pay, corporations are spending the lion's share of the tax
savings on goosing their stock.
Let's not forget, these buybacks are relatively new. A ruling by the
SEC in the early eighties said they could start doing these. Before
that, the heyday, when corporate America dominated the world, profits
were great, jobs were growing, and wages went up, the safe harbor
provision wasn't there. Corporations had to go through a lot of proof
before they could buy back their stock, and that made sense, but once
our Republican colleagues got in power, they did what the corporate
leaders want them to do and look what happened.
The amendment to say no buybacks unless they can prove it is really
going to benefit their workers and be in the long-term financial
interest of their company, that amendment is going to be one of the top
amendments to the upcoming bill. I hope it gains Republican support. I
really do. If Republicans mean what they say, they should
[[Page S1532]]
join Baldwin's amendment, as I said before, but I want to repeat it for
the benefit of all my good Republican friends.
Now, the glut of corporate share buybacks highlights precisely how
the corporate tax cut in the Republican bill is being put to ill use.
Rather than stimulating the economy, creating jobs, raising pay,
corporations spend the lion's share of the tax savings on goosing their
stock. Americans are just scratching their heads, wondering why we put
ourselves in deeper debt so corporations could further enrich
themselves. Why do we tell our children and grandchildren they are
going to pay for the pay raise of the CEO of Exxon or the increase in
value because his stock is going up? That doesn't make any sense at
all. There are much better uses for the money.
Yesterday, Democrats announced our plan to help build a trillion
dollars of desperately needed infrastructure in America. How do we pay
for it? We unwind some of these tax cuts for the biggest corporations
to pay for a massive infusion of Federal funds in infrastructure--job-
creating infrastructure, which is desperately needed. Just by putting
the top rate on individuals where it was, reinstituting the AMT and the
estate tax, which goes only to the very wealthy, and setting the
corporate rate at 25 percent--you may recall it was the Business
Roundtable that asked for 25 percent. Oh, no, for our Republican
colleagues and Donald Trump, that wasn't good enough. Make it lower--
even though the 200 biggest businesses in America said 25 percent was
certainly an adequate drop. Many on my side wouldn't even think that is
good.
In any case, the BMT asked for 25 percent. We go to 25 percent, along
with these other changes, and guess what we do with $1 trillion. We
create infrastructure jobs--millions. We create new roads and bridges,
new water and sewer. We say that every rural home in America should get
broadband just as Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s said every rural
home should get electricity. We update our power grid so all this new
energy coming from other places can go to the most populated centers.
It would be a huge shot in the arm for jobs in America, for prosperity
in America, far more than this slanted tax bill aimed so much at the
few wealthy who are so tight with this new Republican Party.
I daresay our proposal is a much more effective use of taxpayer
dollars than a handout to the biggest corporations and will create far
more good-paying jobs in the process.
I hope our Republican colleagues will rethink things. Their path is a
path to a cul-de-sac, to great losses in the election. Rethink that tax
cut. Don't allow these buybacks. They are doing no good for anyone but
a handful, and that is where 60 percent of the money is going on the
corporate rate.
Join us in taking some of that money to do what the Federal
Government has done since Henry Clay proposed it in the 1820s: Put that
money into infrastructure, jobs, good-paying jobs, efficiency. Let's
not let China or another country become the leader in infrastructure.
They invest. The Chinese Government, the Japanese Government, the
European Government invest in infrastructure, and so did this
government, until Donald Trump became President and the hard right
gained a stranglehold over the Republican Party. Let's reverse course
before it is too late.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Texas.
Tax Reform
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess I have to give my friend, the
Senator from New York, credit. Once he made his bed, he decided he had
better lie in it.
Democrats made a risky gamble when they bet against the American
people in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we passed in December. No
Democrat supported it--none--and now I think they are beginning to
worry that it is actually working. Otherwise, I don't understand why
the Democratic leader, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, would
say: We need to raise your taxes because we can spend your money better
than you can. I guess he means that we also need to eliminate the
doubling of the standard deduction, which makes sure that the first
$24,000 earned by a married couple is tax-free--zero tax rate. I guess
he thinks we ought to repeal the doubling of the child tax credit.
As much as he rails about corporations, the fact is, what we did on
the business side with taxes has made the United States more
competitive globally. It is the same argument that he, President Obama
in a State of the Union speech, and the ranking member of the Senate
Finance Committee, Senator Wyden--it is the same argument they made
that we embraced.
We got a little more aggressive than they did in terms of the rate.
We lowered it, not to 25 percent, as Senator Wyden had proposed, but to
21 percent; thus, we made ourselves roughly average in the
industrialized world, making America more competitive. We were seeing
people going overseas and investing because they had better tax rates
than we had here in America.
Who owns the stock? You have heard the Democratic leader talk about
stock buybacks. He said: Well, these corporations are using this money
to buy their own stock back. Do you know who owns stock in America? I
am not sure of the exact percentage, but a huge percentage of it is
owned by retirement funds and pension funds of firefighters, teachers,
and others who want to see that their retirement is not only safe but
also grows. What they have seen since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was
passed in December is the value of their retirement funds go through
the roof. The stock market is at an all-time high--or thereabouts. It
has set huge records.
I know our friends on the other side of the aisle are worried because
they made a dangerous gamble against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but the
fact is, all the polling is showing that as people are seeing the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act actually being implemented, they are seeing more
money in their paychecks. Because the withholding tables were changed
to reflect lower tax rates, people are seeing more take-home pay. And
as the economy continues to grow, there is going to be more competition
for workers.
Unemployment claims are the lowest they have been since 1969. As
there is more competition for workers, that is going to force employers
to pay more wages, so everyone is going to benefit from a growing
economy.
Sometimes I think our colleagues across the aisle have settled for
too little. They settled for a stagnant economy, frozen wages, and an
America that could no longer compete in the world when it came to
attracting business and investment. We changed that.
Every single person on this side of the aisle--all 51 of us--voted
for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Everyone on that side of the aisle voted
against it. I think the Democratic leader now is getting pretty
worried, especially leading up to the November elections, when a number
of his colleagues on that side of the aisle are going to have to go to
voters and say: I voted against your pay raise; I voted against take-
home pay; I voted against increasing the standard deduction; I voted
against an increase in the child tax credit. I think they are pretty
worried about it; otherwise, I couldn't imagine the Democratic leader
coming out here and saying what he said today.
He said: Well, we want to raise your taxes so we can spend it. I
think the folks I represent--the 28 million Texans I represent--would
say: No thank you. We want to spend our own hard-earned money the way
we see fit, not send it to Washington to see it go into some black
hole, and then we will not know what we actually benefited from.
I didn't necessarily intend to come to the floor to talk about that,
but I couldn't resist responding briefly to my friend's comments.
Mr. President, I do want to congratulate the senior Senator from
Idaho for a moment, Mr. Crapo, the chairman of the Banking Committee,
on the bill that is pending on the floor. He has done stellar work to
bring this Dodd-Frank reform bill to the floor, one that will release
some of those shackles on small community banks and credit unions.
They were the victims of overkill when it came to regulation under
the name of Dodd-Frank, which was designed to address Wall Street and
the excesses of Wall Street. But as I have told my friends who are
community bankers and members of credit unions back home: You weren't
the target, but
[[Page S1533]]
you were the collateral damage. We are going to remedy that on a
bipartisan basis, thanks to the Banking Committee, its chairman,
Senator Crapo, and our colleagues.
Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act
Mr. President, this morning, I want to mention another area where the
Banking Committee and Senator Crapo are showing great leadership, and
that is on a bill that will improve the CFIUS review process. Let me
unpack that.
CFIUS is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
That acronym stands for the interagency body led by the Treasury
Department, in this case by Secretary Mnuchin. It polices foreign
investment in the United States for national security risks.
The Banking Committee has held two hearings on the bipartisan bill
that I introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, which is called the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act. I hope the committee will have a markup on that bill
soon.
The House Financial Services Committee has also been holding hearings
on our bill, including one last week, and has more planned in the
future.
The time to act is now because this process is outdated, and the
committee's jurisdiction remains too narrow. Let me explain why that is
so important.
This review process was not originally designed, and is now
insufficient, to address today's rapidly evolving threats to our
national security. Perhaps most alarmingly, many transactions that
could pose a national security risk often go unreviewed altogether.
In particular, China has proved adept at cheating the current CFIUS
system. It exploits gaps and creatively structures investments in U.S.
businesses to evade scrutiny. They literally have been vacuuming up
startup technology firms that are going to produce the next cutting-
edge technology that would give America a competitive advantage against
the rest of the world when it comes to our national security, and they
are thinking strategically in the long term by showing up as investors
in some of these businesses and flying beneath the radar screen. They
are unreviewed under the current CFIUS process.
To circumvent review, China will often pressure U.S. companies into
arrangements like joint ventures and coerce them into handing over
their technology and their know-how. This enables Chinese companies to
acquire and then replicate U.S.-bred capabilities on their own soil,
destroying jobs here in America in the process, as well as our
industrial base. Many of these technologies have a direct military
application, and my bill, cosponsored with Senator Feinstein, addresses
this problem.
As we speak, China is turning our own technology and know-how against
us and seeking to erase our national security advantage little by
little. They are doing it relentlessly and strategically. This massive
technology transfer, which occurs out of the public eye and is achieved
through China's deliberate campaign of evasion of our security
safeguards, must end.
We don't have to look very far to see how technology is increasingly
the realm where U.S. national security interests and China's economic
and military interests lie in tension with one another or, in the worst
case, they actually collide. It is happening almost every day.
Consider the widely reported news this week that CFIUS--the Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States--has ordered a full
investigation into a foreign bid to take over a prominent American
computer chip manufacturer. That company, Qualcomm, plays a leading
role in supporting U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, especially
by doing the research and investment of 5G technology, which is
important for autonomous vehicles and the internet, increasing the use
of cellular technology for what is transforming our lives. It supports
our national security through classified work in the Federal
Government.
The cause for alarm is that the deal is a hostile takeover, and the
consequences of the takeover could put China in the driver's seat for
the next generation of mobile technology.
Chinese companies, beholden as they are to the Chinese Communist
Party, would fill any void that is left once the deal is complete, much
to the detriment of our national security and our economy.
We are still gathering information, and not all the facts are known
yet, but I want to stress that we need to do our due diligence. We need
to have a comprehensive review of this hostile takeover. In my view,
CFIUS, with Secretary Mnuchin leading at the Treasury Department, is
right to be extremely cautious and to investigate this matter further.
Today there is a growing recognition that foreign investors are
getting more sophisticated in accessing our technology. As this week's
developments show, we can't be naive in thinking that this isn't
happening or that it is not a clear and present danger or naive about
State-owned enterprises in countries like China, where there is no such
thing as the private and public sector. The government controls
everything because that is the nature of their Communist system.
The Chinese Government has plans to dominate mobile technology,
quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and other industries; that
much is clear. One tactic is to force American companies to transfer
high-tech industrial capabilities to China's homegrown players in
exchange for the U.S. firms gaining access to the Chinese market. That,
too, is well documented. But the quid pro quos don't stop there. They
aren't even confined to the technology space.
Recently, there have been calls to investigate China's involvement in
American college campuses through the so-called Confucius Institutes.
These institutes are proxies for the Chinese Communist Party. They
offer schools financial benefits in exchange to set up shop in close
proximity to U.S. researchers and students whose views they attempt to
influence for what are essentially manipulative propaganda campaigns--
ones that conveniently whitewash over the Communist regime's less
flattering attributes and their troubling history of human rights
abuses and belligerence in places like the South China Sea.
I know our colleague, the junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, who
cochairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, has called on
schools that host Confucius Institutes to end those partnerships, and
he is right to do so. Steady and stealthy forms of information warfare
should be a perpetual concern, especially when none other than Gen. Joe
Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that by 2025,
China will pose the greatest threat to U.S. national security of any
nation.
The bipartisan bill Senator Feinstein and I have introduced is an
important piece of our overall response to this threat. It has been
endorsed by the administration and is supported by the current
Secretaries of Defense and Treasury, as well as the Attorney General.
Let's not hold this up any longer.
I congratulate the chairman of the Banking Committee for the good
work on the bill that is on the floor. I thank him for his leadership
and willingness to work with us on this important CFIUS reform bill. I
look forward to the upcoming markup of this bill in the committee soon.
Fix NICS Bill
Finally, Mr. President, let me say that every day that goes by since
the shooting in Parkland, FL, on February 14--every day that goes by,
we are distracted by other concerns, and our memories dim of the
terrible mass tragedy that occurred at that school, the shootings that
occurred there that day.
I know the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was at Stoneman
Douglas High School yesterday for the students' first full, normal
schoolday, 3 weeks after the shooting. She said it was a sobering
moment--and I am sure it was--speaking to the students and teachers,
who still flinch remembering the sounds of bullets in the hallways of
their school. Fourteen students died, along with one teacher, the
school's athletic director, and a coach who was shielding students with
his body so they would not be hit.
That is the thing about these events--these stories make us sad and
angry and sometimes numb, all at the
[[Page S1534]]
same time, but from these stories, from these tragedies, heroes do
emerge.
We saw one of those heroes last fall at Sutherland Springs, TX, where
people were gathered to worship at a small Baptist church just outside
of San Antonio. A man who prefers not to be recognized grabbed his
rifle and ran to the church that was under attack, and he saved lives
in the process by preventing the gunman from continuing the carnage.
That is a case of somebody taking an AR-15 out of his gun safe. He is a
certified shooting instructor. He came to the aid of people who were
defenseless and who were being slaughtered at that church, and he saved
many lives.
The person who was shooting at that church in Sutherland Springs was
a convicted felon, and he was, under existing law, legally permitted to
purchase or possess firearms. That is why, when I came back to
Washington after visiting Sutherland Springs at the next Sunday
service, I introduced a bill to fix the holes in the national instant
background check system--to make sure that shooters like the one at
Sutherland Springs could not legally purchase firearms.
Part of the reason I did that was because after I talked to Pastor
Frank Pomeroy, who lost his daughter Annabelle in the massacre, I
promised myself I would do everything in my power to prevent similar
events from occurring in the future. I did the same after I spoke with
a man by the name of Andrew Pollack, who lost his daughter Meadow in
Florida last month. I met Andrew last week, along with Senator Rubio,
who I know has been similarly moved to take action.
After having these difficult conversations, I can't tell my
colleagues how disappointed I am that the Senate has done nothing--
nothing--to prevent them from happening in the future. We can't even
tell fathers and mothers that we have taken the first step toward
ending some of the violence that plagues our country, that puts bullet
holes in our classrooms and spills blood inside some of our most sacred
places.
The bill that I introduced to fix the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System is called Fix NICS. That is what it does. It
fixes the holes in the background check system so that people like Mr.
Kelley, the shooter at Sutherland Springs, could not legally purchase a
firearm. I am grateful to my colleagues who have cosponsored that bill.
It includes the majority leader and the minority leader, Senator
Schumer, as well as Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal from
Connecticut and all of our close to 60 bipartisan cosponsors. They
believe that what the bill tries to do, which is to fix our broken
background check system, is important and will save lives and will keep
guns out of the hands of convicted felons.
Recently, we saw that the bill could make a real difference in places
like Ohio. There, it was reported that dozens of courts are failing to
upload conviction records into the FBI National Instant Criminal
Background Check System and that this failure could result in convicted
felons purchasing guns. This bill would help alleviate that problem. A
similar glitch is one that allowed the gunman in Sutherland Springs, of
course, to purchase the firearm he used when the Air Force failed to
upload his conviction records into the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, as they were obligated to do. The law requires
that these convictions be uploaded, and now we need to make sure those
laws are enforced.
Sixty is how many votes we need to pass this legislation in the
Senate, and I am confident, were that bill to be brought to the floor
and we had a vote on it, it would actually get many, many more--close
to unanimity--here in the Senate. Last week we tried to get an
agreement to have a debate on the bill followed by an up-or-down vote.
Sadly and inexplicably, the minority leader blocked that agreement. I
don't think the minority leader opposes the bill--he is actually a
cosponsor of it--but he is in a bind. He is being pressured by a
handful of those in his conference who say that this is not sufficient.
I know people on both sides of the aisle would like to do more, but I
want to make sure we don't fail to do anything at all or that we don't
end up doing nothing. Many of these Members have indicated that they
want votes on other measures. Frankly, I would be fine with that, but
let's make sure we don't leave here another day emptyhanded by failing
to take action on the one consensus piece of legislation that would be
supported by an overwhelming majority of the Senate.
I would like to be able to report good news to Pastor Pomeroy and his
wife Sherri. I am sure my colleagues from Florida would like to do the
same for the shocked families who are still grieving in Parkland. We
need to send a message to families that when they drop their children
off at school and when they go to church to worship, they will be
safe--or safer than they would be if we fail to act.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Gun Safety
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas. I
listened carefully to his words about gun safety, and I agree with so
much of what he said. He talked about bringing his bill to the floor. I
think his bill is a good bill. His bill tries to provide more
information into the NICS system. We definitely need to do that. He
also said he was open to amendments on the floor. I am as well. I think
there are other aspects of gun safety that we may even find common
ground on as well. But I might remind him that the decision about the
business on the floor of the Senate is in the hands of his side of the
aisle.
It is your decision to decide, through your majority leader, what we
consider on the floor of the Senate. An effort to do this by unanimous
consent is certainly understandable in light of the events of the last
few weeks, but if Senator McConnell were to announce that as soon as we
finish this banking bill, we are going to move to the Fix NICS bill and
have it open to amendment, I think he would find support from both
sides of the aisle to do that. I hope he will, because things are
changing in America, as they should. Gun violence and the terrible
tragedies that occurred in Texas and in Florida and in so many States
have really raised consciousness of this issue.
I am a grandfather and proud to be. I have two 6-year-old twins who
are first graders in Brooklyn, NY. They are the cutest kids in the
world, and I am very objective about that.
About 2 weeks ago, my little granddaughter came home from the first
grade and said to her mom: Mom, they told us at school that if there is
a shooter outside the school, stay away from the windows, and if a
shooter comes in the classroom, get on the floor.
First grade. Is there any sane person in America who thinks that
should be a normal talk in the first grade classroom? Is there any
person, constitutional scholar or not, who believes the Second
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was designed to
allow this to happen? I can't imagine.
Ninety-seven percent of the American people believe in universal,
comprehensive background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those
who would misuse them, including convicted felons and mentally unstable
people--97 percent. The overwhelming majority of gun owners feel
exactly the same way. So why in God's Name have we not taken that up
since the tragedy in Florida and the tragedy in Texas? There is no
explanation for it other than fear--fear of the National Rifle
Association and the gun lobby. That is the only explanation.
I salute the legislators in the State of Florida who this last week
defied the NRA and defied the gun lobby and passed their own measure
for gun safety. I don't agree with parts of it. Giving cafeteria
workers in schools the right to carry arms around the school--I don't
think that is a wise thing at all. I understand that there is
opposition to that from teachers' organizations and even Republican
leaders in Florida. But they did stand up when it came to questions
about how old you have to be to buy a firearm, a long gun, and other
questions that I think are just common sense.
So I would say to my friend from Texas, the majority whip, what you
said is something I can support. Bring your bill to the floor, open to
amendment. Let us have our day in the Senate where we actually act as
legislators, where people will come to the
[[Page S1535]]
Galleries and not see an empty Chamber but instead will find Members of
the Senate, 100 strong, Democrats and Republicans, at their desks,
debating measures that make a difference in the life of America. That
is why we are sent here.
I had a friend of mine years ago when I served in the House--he was a
Congressman from Muskogee, OK. His name was Mike Synar. He was a dear,
close friend of mine. Mike lost his primary in Oklahoma because he was
fearless. He used to come to the floor when we had votes, and he would
see Members of his own caucus kind of wincing, afraid to vote for
something they knew was right for fear of the political consequences.
He used to get right in their faces. Mike would say: If you don't want
to fight fires, don't be a firefighter. If you don't want to stand here
and debate controversial issues and vote on them, don't run for
Congress.
Mike was right. He was right then, and he is right now.
Let's bring gun safety to the floor of the Senate. Let's open it to
amendments. Let's have a fulsome, bipartisan debate. We understand that
nothing is going to pass without bipartisan support. We should do
everything in our power to exercise the power and the right we are
given as U.S. Senators to fix the problems facing American families.
This is a problem. It is a problem when a first grader in Brooklyn, NY,
has to be warned that if somebody walks into the classroom with a gun,
she is supposed to get down on the floor.
DACA
This is the week, of course, of President Trump's deadline on DACA
students--Dreamers--those young people who came to the United States as
infants and toddlers and young people, grew up in this country, pledged
allegiance to that flag just as we did this morning, and believed that
they were part of America until, at some point in their teenage years,
their parents pulled them aside and said: I have to tell you something.
You are not legal here. You are undocumented here. You can be deported
tomorrow, and we would be deported with you.
They continued their lives with the resilience that a lot of young
people show. Some of them did amazing things, even with the knowledge
that they weren't ``legal in America.'' They achieved extraordinary
things in education and in serving their communities. They did it
against great odds because they don't qualify for Federal assistance
for higher education. If you go to college and you are one of these
undocumented Dreamers, you don't get Federal student loans. You don't
get Pell grants. You have to go out and work. You have to save up
enough money to go to school. That is the only way. They did it, and
all they have asked for in return, all they have ever asked for, is a
chance to earn their way into legal status in America. Brought here as
kids, they want a chance to prove to America that they love this
country and they can make it a better country. That is all they have
asked for.
For 17 years, I have come to the floor of this Senate--I know you
have to be patient as a Senator, but this is getting a little crazy--
for 17 years, I have come to the floor of the Senate and asked my
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will you give them a chance?
Will you just give them a chance? Let them show you that they can bring
something of value to this country. Let them prove to you that they are
no danger to this country in any way whatsoever and, in fact--just the
opposite--will make us stronger. Give them a chance.
We haven't been able to do it, and President Trump has made it worse.
On September 5, he eliminated the DACA protection program. He said that
as of March 5, which was Monday of this week, they will lose their
protection. The only thing that protects them at this moment is court
decisions, which could change in a week or a month. But if those court
decisions don't come their way, those young people who have lived here
their entire lives, who believe they are Americans and want to be part
of America, will be subject to deportation. That is the reality.
The Senate took up this measure a few weeks ago. We gave to the
President six different bipartisan solutions to this problem--Democrats
and Republicans agreed on six different ways to solve it--and the
President rejected every one. He rejected the bill that came before the
Senate. Only 8 Republicans--only 8 out of the 51 Republicans--would
stand up and vote with Democrats to solve this problem. I wish it were
more. We only needed a few more.
Now we are in a position where this Senate again, like the issue of
gun safety, is not taking up the issue of DACA and the Dreamers. It
isn't as though we are too busy around here, is it, when you look at
this empty Chamber and these empty desks? We could do a lot of things
here if we were determined to use the power and opportunity that have
been given to us by the American voters.
Mr. President, the one pending issue that is before us, I would like
to discuss this morning.
Next week, it will be the 10th anniversary of the collapse of the
company known as Bear Stearns. As we approach that anniversary, it is
remarkable to me that Congress is now debating, 10 years later, an
effort to undo the financial reforms we put in place after what was
tantamount to a recession or depression hit America. That was the worst
financial crisis of our lifetime 10 years ago. Many of us never want to
see it repeated.
I am supportive of meaningful regulatory relief for smaller banks,
community banks, and credit unions, but I cannot support legislation
that rolls back key Wall Street reforms at the request of the same
banks that started the crisis.
We know what happened the last time financial regulations were eased:
an economic collapse that rippled not just through the United States
but around the world. That financial crisis of 10 years ago left our
country spiraling into deep recession. It left almost 9 million
Americans out of work and our unemployment rate above 10 percent.
Families across America lost $19 trillion in household wealth,
retirement, and savings. Hard-fought savings that they put aside for
their kids' education and their retirement evaporated on a daily basis
in the midst of that recession.
In my home State of Illinois, we weren't spared. During the height of
the financial crisis, almost 800,000 people in my State experienced
mortgage delinquencies and 70,000 more went through personal
bankruptcy. I remember going to these meetings where gymnasiums would
be filled with people trying to find some way to save their homes
because the mortgages they had signed up for had blown up in their
faces. This was evident in my hometown of East St. Louis, in the city
of Chicago, in Aurora, and many other communities. Of course, the cost
of this financial crisis fell, as it always does, on the shoulders of
everyday families.
In the wake of those terrible losses and the sacrifices that had to
be made, we in Congress said: We are not going to let this happen
again. We won't let these banks take control again. We won't let greed
overcome common sense when it comes to banking policy.
President Obama signed into law commonsense financial reforms and put
an end to some of the worst, inexcusable practices by banks that
brought our economy to its knees. These new Wall Street reforms were
intended to address the dangerous problem of too big to fail so that
American taxpayers would never again be on the hook for the
consequences of recklessness and greed on Wall Street.
Systemically important banks whose demise would pose serious risk to
our financial system were subjected to higher capital buffers and
increased leverage requirements. In other words, if the Federal
Government was going to put an insurance program in place to guarantee
that it would protect the savers at the bank, we were going to require
the banks to do responsible things--don't put taxpayers on the hook for
your stupidity and your greed.
Banks were required to report their lending data to ensure that
borrowers had the ability to repay the loans they took out and to avoid
abusive mortgage practices. Do you remember what happened? People would
walk into a bank, and they would be lured into a mortgage they could
barely afford to pay, some of them unaware of the fact that there was a
balloon provision in that mortgage where the interest rate in a few
years was going to dramatically increase and make their monthly
[[Page S1536]]
payments financially impossible for them.
Many of them said: Well, if the value of my real estate goes up
dramatically, then I will just refinance the mortgage. It did not go up
dramatically, it went down, and that is when people faced mortgage
foreclosure.
So we said: Let's rewrite the rules. Let's not let the banks lead
people into a financial obligation that is so risky and so dangerous
that we never want to see it again.
The new rules and regulations provided certainty to banks and
consumers. And what happened next? Our economy did very well. With this
new generation of regulation on banks--it didn't stifle economic growth
at all. In part due to these sensible reforms enacted in Dodd-Frank
under the Obama administration, our economy now has an unemployment
rate of 4.1 percent, not 10 percent. Banks are lending, and bank
profits are at record peaks. They are making money hand over fist. In
2016, banks in America made their highest profits ever. This was after
the regulations we enacted--the ones they have been complaining about
ever since.
How about American businesses? They are thriving. Our gross domestic
product grew by 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2017. In fact,
since the passage of this Wall Street reform, our economy has grown at
twice the rate of other advanced economies, while our stock market
has--until just a few weeks ago--hit record after record. You can't
argue that we are regulating banks so much that it is hurting the
economy when you read these numbers. Nearly all measures in the labor
market have fallen below their prerecession averages. This is the
result of a sensible, forceful response by Congress to illegitimate and
dangerous practices by the banking industry.
We simply cannot afford to return to that thrilling time of
yesteryear when banks were not carefully regulated and carefully
watched so they didn't go overboard. Instead, as we approach the 10th
anniversary of the worst financial crisis since 1929, we should be
working to strengthen our financial system, protect families and
businesses and the hard-earned money they have saved, and continue to
grow our economy.
There is a room just a few steps away from this Senate Chamber on
this floor of the Senate where I have been present twice at a historic
moment.
The first one, with great sadness, was 9/11. I was meeting in that
room as we finally tried to understand what was happening to America
with the attacks on the World Trade Center, the plane crashing in
Pennsylvania, and the plane crashing into the Pentagon, with black
smoke billowing across the Mall. It was that room.
It was that same room where we were called together by the head of
the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, and the head of the Treasury
Department, Mr. Paulson. There were probably 20 or 30 Members of the
Senate and House in that room when they announced to us that we were
within 24 hours of seeing the economy of the United States start to
collapse. You never forget those moments. They told us that the banking
issues that we have discussed here this morning had led us to the point
where we had to step in as a government to save the banking industry in
America in order to save the economy of America and perhaps the world.
Those are sobering words, and I remember them well. They inspired us.
They drove us to the point where we came up with new financial reform,
serious reform, so that there would never be another repeat of that
terrible day. We are on the floor of the Senate now arguing about
changing those standards of reform.
If we are going into this issue to debate it, there is one part of it
that I want to raise. It is one of the seven amendments that have been
put forward by the Democratic side of the aisle. I think it is
critically important. It deals with an issue that every single Member
of the Senate understands if they have spent 15 minutes back home. It
is the issue of America's student loan crisis.
For many Americans today, there is no bigger drag on their families
than student loan debt. More than 44 million Americans cumulatively owe
more than $1.5 trillion in student loan debt. That is greater than the
total amount of credit card debt in America.
Unlike most of us who could borrow a reasonable amount to finance our
college education, this generation of college graduates starts off with
an average debt of $27,000 on day one after graduation. Many have much,
much more, especially if they were duped by the notorious for-profit
college industry in America.
I hear from young people who have had to forgo home ownership,
starting a family, and buying a car because of student debt. I also
hear from those who have gone back to school and stay in school because
they can't imagine starting to pay back their debt. They dig the hole
deeper every semester.
Too often, this debt involves their parents and grandparents. It was
reported a couple years ago that a grandmother--who was kind and signed
on as a cosigner of her granddaughter's student loan debt--after the
granddaughter defaulted, was being chased by the Federal Government,
which threatened to attach her Social Security benefits so they could
recoup the student loan that her granddaughter signed up for with her
cosignature. That is why we are bringing an amendment to the floor, and
it should be part of this debate on this bill.
If we are going to talk about reform for banks, let's talk about a
reform American families really care about--student loan reform.
One of the things included in this amendment is a borrower bill of
rights. Once a student graduates, their loans go into repayment with
private financial institutions or, in the case of Federal student
loans, servicers contracted by the Department of Education. These
servicers are supposed to help the borrowers navigate the repayment
process by making sure they are on the right repayment plan, processing
payments correctly, and keeping borrowers informed. Well, how are they
doing? Between July 2011 and August 2017, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau handled almost 51,000 complaints related to private
and Federal student loans. The majority of the complaints, both private
and Federal, addressed difficulties in interacting with lenders or
servicers. This is unacceptable. Lenders and servicers should be making
repayment easier, not more difficult.
To improve Federal and private student loan servicing, our amendment
includes the Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights. It requires
notifications and protections for borrowers when a loan is sold or
transferred to another company or when the interest rate or other key
terms of the loan change. It establishes a standard for applying
payments so that payments are applied in a way that most benefits the
borrower. It protects borrowers from unreasonable late fees. It
requires servicers to provide borrowers online access to information
about their loans, such as payment history and loan terms, and requires
key information to be disclosed to borrowers by servicers.
The student loan borrowers' bill of rights also prevents servicers
from using predispute mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent
borrowers from holding them accountable in court.
While Federal student loan borrowers often face challenges, the
situation is worse for borrowers who have private student loans, not
government loans. There is now an estimated $165 billion in outstanding
private student loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
reported that in 2012 at least 850,000 private student loans, worth $8
billion, were in default.
Private student loans often have uncapped variable interest rates,
which can spike to 20 percent and more, and hefty fees, and these loans
often lack the protections that come with Federal student loans.
Unfortunately, many student borrowers, and even their family members,
don't understand the difference between a Federal loan and a private
loan, and they end up taking out costly private loans when they are
still eligible for Federal loans that are much more reasonable with
lower interest rates.
Almost half of private loan borrowers in 2011 and 2012 did not max
out on their more reasonable Federal loans and ended up taking out
private loans that were worse. That is why I introduced the Know Before
You Owe Private Education Loan Act, included in this amendment,
requiring borrowers to be notified of the difference and their
eligibility.
Finally, the amendment requires private student lenders to offer
student
[[Page S1537]]
loan rehabilitation consistent with Federal student loans. It gives
private student loan borrowers who default a fresh start.
My amendment also addresses the key issue of bankruptcy. Did you know
that if you borrowed money to buy a second home, buy a car, or buy a
boat and then lost your job and couldn't pay off those loans and went
into bankruptcy court saying: I don't have any money left, and I can't
pay off these loans, the court could discharge those loans for your
vacation home, your car, your boat, in bankruptcy, and say: We wipe the
slate clean; you filed for bankruptcy, you qualify, and the slate is
wiped clean. However, if one of your loans is not for a second home, a
car, or a boat but is a student loan, then, the student loan is not
dischargeable from bankruptcy. Originally, this was done in the 1970s
because there were some students exploiting the system--borrowing money
and then declaring bankruptcy after graduation. Then, in 2005 Congress
extended nondischargeability not just to Federal Government loans but
to private loans, which even extended it to those loans that were given
by these notorious for-profit colleges and universities.
So before 2005, private student loans were treated in bankruptcy
proceedings like credit card debt and other types of private unsecured
debt. They could be discharged as part of a bankruptcy plan to help a
student debtor get back on his or her feet. But in 2005, when Congress
passed a sweeping bankruptcy reform bill, a provision was slipped in
that gave private student lenders a uniquely privileged status. Only a
few types of private unsecured debt are nondischargeable in bankruptcy:
child support, back taxes, alimony, criminal fines. Now private student
loans are part of that list.
Since 2005, lenders have been incentivized to push expensive private
student loans on students, many of whom will not be able to repay the
loans. This is an enormous problem.
I cannot explain why private student loans are given special
treatment in the bankruptcy code. Neither can the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, who told the Senate recently that he
was ``at a loss'' to explain why we don't allow student debt to be
discharged in bankruptcy. He said that the growing amount of
nondischargeable student debt ``absolutely could hold back growth.''
We need to address this looming student debt crisis. My amendment
would help by restoring dischargeability for private student loans in
bankruptcy.
The amendment also clarifies the undue hardship exception that
Congress wrote into the bankruptcy code. We said: There is one
provision. If you are facing undue hardship, then, perhaps you can
discharge even a student loan.
Almost never does a court find undue hardship. Congress did not
define the term, and most courts have interpreted the term to have such
a high bar that most students don't even try to pursue the exception
because of the difficulty and expense of proving undue hardship in
court.
We tried to address that. This amendment would provide clarity around
undue hardship by identifying situations where there should be a
rebuttable presumption that a student loan debtor has an undue
hardship. We tried to address it in terms of those who clearly are
facing undue hardship and need a helping hand. What are the categories
of those facing bankruptcy who cannot discharge current student loans
who would be able to discharge them under our amendment? It will be
those who have been determined by the Veterans' Administration to have
a service-connected disability. Should we give disabled veterans in
America a helping hand like this? I think so. How about the family
caregiver of elderly or disabled family members or veterans? How about
those receiving Social Security disability whose only income is Social
Security? How about those who spent years at a low income? Do you think
they might be facing an undue hardship and can't pay back a student
loan? I think so, and this amendment would give them the opportunity to
make their case.
There are other provisions, as well, but I see colleagues on the
floor who want to speak as well. I have spoken for a while. I am going
to stand down in just a moment.
If we can take up the issue of making it easier for banks to do
business in America, can we spare a few minutes to debate whether we
can make it easier for student borrowers to survive when the student
debts they face are stopping them from moving forward in their lives?
These are massive debts that stop them from getting married, buying a
home or a car, or starting a family? That is the reality for many
families across America.
I hope my colleagues will join me. A lot of us give some great
speeches about student loans. It would be terrific if we could allow on
the floor of the Senate those speeches and a vote on that critical
issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan).
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, let me tell you about Farmers State Bank
of Allen, OK. I know exactly where Allen, OK, is. I bet a bunch of
folks in this room do not. It is a small town, and this a small bank.
There is $43 million in total assets in that bank. That is a pretty
small bank, as banks go. It is located in a town of about 900
Oklahomans in total. The town has a number of small business owners,
farmers, and ranchers--folks that some people in this room fly over.
There are good families who live in that great town. Many of them have
great credit scores and have a good family history of repayment back to
the bank when they have taken loans, because that is the bank in town.
They have been longtime customers of this bank. In many instances, the
bank employees and the people in the bank have grown up together. They
know each other, but they also understand seasonal income.
When you are a farmer and rancher who doesn't come in with a W-2
every single week or every month--it comes in seasonally--they
understand the credit restrictions there.
A banker, named Debbie, at the Farmer State Bank of Allen wrote me
this and said:
Between the Ability to Repay and Global Cash Flow analysis,
particularly for a bank of this size, these new rules take
our time away from doing what needs to be done--caring for
our customers.
We have 12 employees and we're treated the same as JPMorgan
Chase, or Goldman Sachs--both of which have an entirely
different business model of operating. They do not operate in
towns of 900 [people]. . . . That's not their business model
or their kinds of markets
One of our key employees now spends most of her time on
compliance issues. Total costs for this employee, together
with the cost of the annual compliance audit [and everything
that goes with it is], now exceeds $100,000 annually.
Again, folks in big towns may not think it is a big issue to have
$100,000 in appliance costs, but the total net income of this bank for
the year is right at $500,000 a year, and $100,000 of it is now spent
on compliance.
How did this happen? This happened when Congress decided in 2010 to
pass something called Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank was a bill signed into law
in July of 2010 to deal with the financial crisis that happened in 2007
and 2008, which was real. The largest banks in our country took some
incredible risks. It caused a financial domino effect all over the
country, and it caused great risk for our international markets.
In response to that, Congress rose up with a strong Democratic
majority, and President Obama ran to it and said: We need to do
something.
They looped together as many different financial restrictions as they
could. They created a new thing called the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, with no oversight at all. They created a whole
litany of new regulations and said: This will only be for the biggest
banks because they were the violators.
They put it out there, and then the regulations started flowing after
that. Guess what. Farmers State Bank of Allen, which was not the cause
of the financial collapse in America, is now caught up, and they are
struggling to survive as a bank. Because Congress decided they were
going to do something, the something ended up being something that is
devastating rural economies in my State.
Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, we have seen a 16-percent decline in
the total number of Oklahoma bank charters--just in my State. There is
a 35-percent decline in Oklahoma charter banks with less than $100
million in
[[Page S1538]]
total assets since Dodd-Frank. The effects of Dodd-Frank were felt
pretty quickly in Oklahoma. It was passed in 2010. By the 2013-to-2014
reporting time, more than 40 percent of the banks in Oklahoma no longer
did mortgage lending at all.
Let that soak in for a minute--banks that don't do mortgages. If you
are in a rural community, that is the bread and butter of normal
lending in that community--going to get a mortgage. But 40 percent of
the banks in Oklahoma, starting in about the 2013, 2014 reporting
cycle--just 3 or 4 years after Dodd-Frank passed--had already said the
compliance costs were so high and the complexity was so great that they
no longer offered mortgages and mortgage lending.
There are folks who say: We will just drive to a big city and go to a
big bank and get it, and they will still take care of that. Quite
frankly, that is what is happening. Dodd-Frank has done an excellent
job of increasing the size, power, and strength of the biggest banks in
America and has targeted the smallest banks in America. We are watching
mergers all over my State, as the smallest banks struggle under the
compliance costs. It almost looks like the design of Dodd-Frank was to
cause biggest banks to get bigger because the smallest banks would not
be able to survive under the compliance burdens that were then created
for them.
What does that look like in real life? Let me tell you about a
gentleman who I bumped into early Monday morning. He was flying out of
Oklahoma. I was sitting next to the gentleman, and were striking up a
conversation. He is a farmer and rancher in Oklahoma. He owns about 200
acres in North Central Oklahoma. He started to go through the purchase
process to actually buy that acreage and couldn't get mortgage lending
for it. No banks in the area would do it. Why? The Dodd-Frank
requirements. Suddenly, a guy in Oklahoma trying to buy 200 acres had
to find a way to scrape together $100,000 of cash to buy a ranch.
Now, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 15 years ago, if you wanted to get
that same ranch, you would go to the bank in town. Now the bank in town
has to tell you that you have to go somewhere else or find some other
way to do it because the restrictions are so high that they can't do it
anymore.
Local customers don't want to deal with someone else in another State
or in another city. They would like to deal with their local bank, but
they can't anymore. Oklahoma's community banks had nothing to do with
the financial collapse in 2008. Yet they have been penalized all the
way through this process.
In total, Dodd-Frank required more than 10 Federal agencies to write
more than 400 new rules, imposing 27,000 new mandates on financial
institutions of every size. Just process that. When you are Farmer
State Bank of Allen and you have 12 employees, you now have to track
27,000 new mandates to keep up with it.
How are you doing with that?
That is what real life looks like. I have had folks say to me: This
is some giveaway to the biggest banks.
What we are dealing with in this reform package is pretty
straightforward. The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial earlier
this week saying that the bill ``eases administrative burdens on 5,000
community banks that make up 98% of the financial institutions but only
15% of the assets.''
Let me run that past you again. What we are dealing with deals with
98 percent of the banks, but of total banking assets in the country, it
is only 15 percent of the assets. That means the top 2 percent of the
banks in the country--the largest top 2 percent of the banks in the
country--have 85 percent of the assets. I understand the higher
regulations on those. They are significant. If they fail, they take
down the global economy. For the other 98 percent of the banks in the
country that have only 15 percent of the total assets in the country--
these are the smallest banks in the country--why are they being dragged
into this?
All we want to say is to allow local banks to be local banks again
and to be able to loan to their neighbors. These are the folks with
whom they go to church and are in Rotary Club, and with whom they have
grown up. They know their kids, and they know their families, but they
are dealing with all these arcane requirements. They are dealing with
27,000 new rules, and they just can't make it.
What does this look like in real life? Let me give you an
illustration from Legacy Bank in Elk City. Damon, from Legacy Bank in
Elk City, OK, said:
As a community banker, my job has become much more
difficult and burdensome to our customers. Legacy has always
strived to offer the best customer service a bank can offer.
I used to be a lender to all. However, with the changes that
have come about with this bill, along with the fines and
penalties that are a potential and, at times, don't use
common sense, I am now a commercial lender only.
Let that soak in for a second. At Legacy Bank in Elk City, he used to
make loans to everyone, and now he is a commercial lender only. What
does that look like in real life? I have folks who come to this floor
and people who catch me and say: Banks are still making lots of money,
and banks are doing just fine. Why is Dodd-Frank a problem?
Yes, banks are going to find a way to still do business. What has
happened? The biggest banks are loaning to corporate customers, and the
smallest banks that used to do small business lending and mortgages and
took care of their community can't do that anymore. So the big is
getting bigger and helping the biggest, and the small is not able to
help the small.
I thought we were supposed to be a country that helped everyone--
corporations or individual farmers and ranchers and citizens who are
trying to start small businesses. Let's get back to doing that again.
Let's not put 27,000 new restrictions on a small community bank and
tell it that it has to abide by everything that JPMorgan Chase does and
treat it as if it is the same. It is not.
There is Frazer Bank in Altus, about which my wife and I have a
longstanding saying: Everywhere you go in the world, you are going to
bump into somebody from Altus, OK. Try it sometime.
A local banker wrote: This past week in Altus, we had a local small
business owner who applied for a home mortgage loan. The customer had a
down payment and closing costs, but one of the key issues preventing
our bank from making this personal loan was the time constraint of 2
years of history. This is someone to whom we would have made a home
loan prior to Dodd-Frank, but now we cannot.
So a small business owner with closing cost money and with an ability
to repay is now blocked out. How serious is that?
Jim Hamby from Vision Bank in Ada wrote me and was trying to describe
exactly what this looks like.
He made the statement: Overly prescriptive rules on mortgage lending
are the big issue. The ability to repay and the rules governing that
topic are geared for people who are W-2 wage earners, not small
business people. Many small business people have already been denied
credit who would have otherwise qualified for a mortgage, and that is
bad policy. Any mortgage bank keeps its own books and should
automatically define what is a qualified mortgage. This would help
alleviate the ``ability to repay'' rule and allow us to take better
care of our customers.
Don't miss what he is saying there. The rules are written for people
who get a paycheck from week to week, not for the small business owner
and certainly not for the farmers and ranchers.
Here is a statement from a banker in Northwest Oklahoma who asked a
simple question: What about a $60 million bank in the northwest corner
of Oklahoma? What about other rural markets where smaller, traditional
community banks have completely abandoned lines of business and
products because the cost of regulation makes it so unprofitable or
because the price of regulation and risk from examiners and lawyers
bring so much additional scrutiny that you can't afford it?
One thing is certain. When banks are forced to leave lines of
business due to government regulation, both customers and communities
suffer. Even in markets in which there are other participants in the
abandoned product line, the reality is, with fewer competitors,
customers pay higher rates and higher fees for a simple service.
This is not a hard issue. For the 2 percent of the largest banks that
have
[[Page S1539]]
85 percent of the banking assets, I understand there is systemic risk
there. For the other 98 percent of the banks in the country that cover
15 percent total of all of the banking assets in the country, why are
they considered so systemically important that 27,000 new regulations
would need to come down on their 12 employees?
This is a good moment in which to get small towns in rural America
working again and to allow people to go down the street to the bankers
they know and went to school with rather than to have to drive to some
big city and talk to the biggest banks in America and have them try to
understand more about rural America.
We can fix this. I am looking forward to passing this reform and
allowing our banks not just to make money--they will find a way to make
money; they are businesses--but to actually get back to serving the
customers they want to serve again in a fair way--farmers and ranchers
and small businesses.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Women's History Month and International Women's Day
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize March as Women's
History Month and today, March 8, as International Women's Day.
Both at home and abroad, how a country treats its women is very much
a barometer of its success. When women live without limitations on
their ability to work, societies prosper. When women live without
restrictions on their access to jobs, healthcare, or justice, societies
prosper. When women succeed, so do their families, their communities,
and their countries.
International Women's Day reminds us that America's global leadership
starts with our progress here in the United States. Unfortunately,
President Trump moved the United States in the wrong direction when he
decided not just to reinstate the global gag rule but to expand it. The
global gag rule disqualifies international organizations from receiving
U.S. family planning assistance if they use any non-U.S. funds to
provide abortion services or even counseling.
What President Trump fails to realize is that access to the family
planning services that these organizations provide is one of the best
tools we have to prevent abortions. When enforced, the global gag rule
has closed the door on some of the most effective, lifesaving women's
health programs in developing countries. By reinstating and expanding
the global gag rule, President Trump is denying millions of women and
their families access to critical healthcare services and is
endangering their lives and the lives of their children.
International Women's Day is the appropriate time to remind my Senate
colleagues that we must end the global gag rule once and for all.
It was also recently reported that the State Department is removing
references to women's rights from this year's human rights report. I am
troubled to learn that the Trump administration, apparently, doesn't
feel that women's rights are important enough to include in our
conversation on human rights. I was equally troubled to learn that the
State Department removed gender equality integration from the Foreign
Affairs Manual. The Foreign Affairs Manual is the chief document for
instructing our foreign policy leadership on the ways to integrate
gender considerations into our diplomatic efforts. Abandoning that
signals a reversal of decades' worth of work in promoting global gender
equality.
The United States should be taking the lead on fostering an open and
honest dialogue about women's issues internationally, not silencing it.
We are better than this.
Here at home, women have succeeded this past year in taking control
of the narrative on sexual harassment, and they have forced deaf ears
to listen. We are witnessing the rise of a new, more equitable social
order that is built on the raw guts and courage of women who are
speaking out to say, ``Me too.''
Hearing so many of my fellow Americans--mothers, sisters, wives,
daughters, friends--retell and relive some of their most traumatic
experiences has been deeply troubling, but it has also been a lesson in
bravery, in tenacity, and in women's unbreakable spirits.
It is that bravery which we must now meet with our own as individuals
and collectively. If we witness harassment, we must be brave enough to
intervene. If we are told about abuse, we must be brave enough to take
decisive action. If we hear about gender discrimination, we must be
brave enough to fight it even when doing so may not be politically
expedient or popular. Scores of women have proved their moral strength.
It is time for us to demonstrate ours.
This Women's History Month, let us take a moment to reflect on the
thousands and thousands of ``Me Too'' stories that go untold and
unheard.
Let us recognize the single working mother making barely more than
minimum wage, living paycheck to paycheck, and struggling to turn $5
into a meal for three. When her coworker begins propositioning her,
there are no cameras and cable talk shows waiting to expose him. She
bears the burden alone, often feeling forced to choose between enduring
disparaging behavior at work or providing for her children at home.
Let us recognize the college graduate working in an office, empowered
and excited about the direction of her career. Yet, in every meeting,
her boss undermines her ideas and, one day, when they are alone,
questions her suggestively about her method of birth control. Weeks
later, his lewd remarks evolve into inappropriate physical contact, and
he tells her that if she ever complains, he will ensure she never finds
another job in her chosen profession.
Let us recognize the immigrant woman working hard at her new job in
her new home, motivated to become part of the American dream. Her male
coworker calls her by disparaging names and suggests openly to their
supervisor that she should make less than he does in the event she ever
becomes pregnant and costs the company money. She begins to fear both
for her job and for herself, but to quit would mean to lose the new
life she has so painstakingly built.
For an untold number of women, these stories are painfully familiar.
The ``Me Too'' movement has proven that sexual harassment and
discrimination know no age and no income level. These experiences are
felt by all women of all backgrounds, so it is up to all of us to
combat it. Sexual harassment is about power. It is about the harassers
and authority figures feeling emboldened by being able to behave the
way they want, wherever they want, with impunity. So let us end the
sense of impunity.
If behavior is about exerting a twisted kind of power, let us arm
women with the most powerful tool in our legal system--the U.S.
Constitution. Let us finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment. The Equal
Rights Amendment is barely longer than a tweet, but it would finally
give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. Section 1
of the ERA states, quite simply: ``Equality of rights under the law
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex.''
When Congress proposed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure
had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States--38 States--within 7
years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint
resolution. Ultimately, only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA
when the deadline expired in 1982--three short. Note that the deadline
was not contained in the amendment, itself. The deadline was contained
in a joint resolution.
Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for the
ratification of amendments, so the ERA deadline is arbitrary. To put
the matter in context, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibits congressional pay raises without an intervening election, was
ratified in 1992--203 years after it was first proposed. The Senate
should vote to remove the ERA deadline immediately, and every State in
our Nation that has not yet taken up its consideration should do so
without further delay.
Nevada became the 36th State to ratify the amendment last March,
leaving the ERA only two States short of the required three-fourths of
the State threshold under the Constitution if the deadline were to be
abolished. I think many--perhaps most--Americans
[[Page S1540]]
would be shocked to learn that our Constitution has no provision
expressly prohibiting gender discrimination.
The ERA would incorporate a ban on gender-based discrimination to be
explicitly written into the Constitution. It would change outcomes in
unequal pay cases by requiring the Supreme Court to use the higher
standard of ``strict scrutiny'' when assessing those cases--the same
standard it uses on racial and religious discrimination cases.
Just as importantly, it would provide a constitutional basis for
claims of gender-based violence and give the Congress the
constitutional basis to pass laws that would give women who have been
victimized by gender-based violence legal recourse in Federal courts.
In a 2011 interview, the late Justice Antonin Scalia summed up best
the need for an Equal Rights Amendment.
He said:
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination
on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits
it. It doesn't.
So I, most sincerely, ask my Senate colleagues this question: Are we
willing to do what must be done to prohibit gender discrimination by
including protection against it in the Constitution? Progress has no
autopilot feature. We must be its agents. We must be its champions.
When we wake up each day to the loud and growing chorus of women saying
``me too,'' how can we deny them the legal tool as powerful and
important as our own country's Constitution?
The people being affected by systemic gender inequality are our
constituents. They are our wives, our daughters, and our
granddaughters. They are American citizens and human beings who deserve
basic respect and equality.
We are capable of so much more than lip service. We are capable of
celebrating Women's History Month by making history. I call on this
Senate to remove the deadline on passing the Equal Rights Amendment and
show the American people we are the leaders they sent us here to be,
and we will take action. Let us prove that we will use our voices when
silence becomes complicity, and we will use our votes when our values
need defending.
Women deserve to see that their Nation's founding document values
them and treats them in a fashion equal to men. They are right to
expect that gender equality should be an explicit, basic principle of
our society. Let us all work together to get this done.
Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are not and never
should be a partisan issue.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I stand today in support of my
colleague from Maryland as the 36th State to ratify the Equal Rights
Amendment. I couldn't agree more. I think it is time to eradicate
discrimination of any kind, so I commend my colleague for standing up
today and for his comments.
Mr. President, I stand to talk about an issue that continues in our
communities, and it is the issue of housing discrimination.
I recently read an article from the Center for Investigative
Journalism about a young woman named Rachelle. At the time, Rachelle
was in her early thirties and living in Philadelphia. She was making
$60,000 a year as a contractor at Rutgers University. She had savings,
good credit, and an undergraduate degree from Northwestern.
When she first went to apply for a home loan, she thought she would
be the perfect applicant. On paper, it seemed that way, but a few weeks
later, she received an email informing her that her application had
been denied.
In the email her broker told her that because she was a contractor
and not a full-time employee, her application was too risky for the
bank to approve. She was at a loss. She had been planning to purchase a
home for years and thought she had done everything right. She then
asked her partner, Hanako, to sign on to the application with her. At
the time, Hanako was working a few hours a week at the grocery store
making $300 a month. That is about $3,600 a year. Hanako tried calling
the bank to speak to a loan officer about the application, and to
Rachelle's surprise, the loan officer picked up. He was attentive,
helpful, and friendly to Hanako. A few weeks later, he approved the
couple's loan.
This makes no sense, right? Rachelle was making an income in the
upper five figures, $60,000 a year. She was the one with good credit,
and she was the one paying for Hanako's health insurance. The
difference here was that Rachelle was Black.
This story did not take place in 1930, when it was legal for housing
lenders to discriminate on the basis of race. It did not take place in
1968, the year banks were formally banned from using race as a factor
in deciding home loan applications. It took place less than 2 years
ago, in 2016.
Today, 50 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, stories
like Rachelle's are all too common. For any person of color who has
tried to navigate the housing market, Rachelle's experience is a case
of deja vu.
We now know that Rachelle was the victim of redlining. ``Redlining''
is a term that describes the practice of denying goods or services to
people on the basis of the color of their skin.
The term originated in the 1930s, when redlining was the official
policy of the Federal Housing Administration. Back then, Federal
officials divvied up cities and assigned a color to each neighborhood.
The color system was supposed to help mortgage lenders know where to
invest. Green and blue neighborhoods were home to desirable borrowers
with good credit. Yellow or red meant risky borrowers lived here so
don't invest. The practice became known as redlining because the FHA
would draw red lines on city maps to designate ``bad'' neighborhoods.
For the FHA, a bad neighborhood was defined by the color of one's skin.
Redlining was banned in the 1960s, but as we learn from stories like
Rachelle's, the practice still goes on under the radar; so much so that
in 1975, Congress passed the Housing Mortgage Disclosure Act--HMDA--to
help regulators identify when it was going on, but even with the new
requirements, redlining continued.
Then, in the 1990s, the financial industry began selling something
called the subprime loan. Subprime loans have high fees, adjustable
interest rates, and payment shocks--characteristics that made them
extremely dangerous. People who weren't approved for traditional loans
were offered subprime loans instead.
In 2008, when the market crashed, subprime loan holders saw their
interest rates skyrocket. They suddenly became unable to afford to stay
in their homes. Who do you think was most likely to hold one of these
so-called subprime mortgages? People living in redlined neighborhoods,
people of color, people who had been denied access to traditional
loans.
My home State of Nevada was one of the hardest hit States in the
country by the financial crisis. We had the highest foreclosure rates
for 62 straight months. We had the most number of underwater mortgages,
and over 219,000 families lost their homes.
Anyone driving through parts of Las Vegas and Reno in 2009 could see
boarded up houses, for sale signs, and empty lots everywhere. On many
streets, you would see more houses in foreclosure than not, and while
all neighborhoods suffered, African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific
Islander communities were hit the hardest. Entire neighborhoods were
hollowed out. Trillions of dollars were lost.
I was the attorney general of Nevada at this time. We did everything
we could to fight for homeowners and help them stay in their homes. As
this was going on, I asked myself: How could this happen? The Federal
Government was supposed to regulate these banks. Where were they? Why
didn't they put a stop to these practices before it all came crashing
down? The Federal Government was supposed to be the watchdog, but they
were letting banks write their own rules.
As attorney general of Nevada, I sued the big banks for their
fraudulent practices and secured over $1.9 billion to help homeowners
in my State.
[[Page S1541]]
In 2010, Federal lawmakers passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that what we saw in 2008 would
never happen again. The bill was not perfect, but it did a lot of
things right.
It strengthened oversight of the big banks. It made the big banks
undergo stress tests and develop bankruptcy plans, and it also
strengthened HMDA, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. It strengthened
reporting requirements to help regulators fight back against
discriminatory, racist, redlining practices.
Banks say they don't treat borrowers differently, but the data shows
us that is a different story. Redlining remains a major problem for
communities of color.
The legislation we are now considering, S. 2155, would roll back Wall
Street reform. It includes a section, section 104, that would repeal
many of the reporting requirements we added after the financial crisis
to prevent housing discrimination. Some rural and low-income census
tracks are predominantly served by small lenders.
If this specific loan data is removed from them, government
officials, researchers, and the public will not have information on the
quality of loans made, nor will they know about the credit scores of
the borrowers or even a way to easily track the loans after they are
sold to investors.
When I was attorney general, I needed the information on the quality
of the loans in the State to protect consumers. Where were the teaser
rates and what was the reset? Who were the homeowners who might not be
ready to pay $20,000 more on their monthly mortgages? These were the
questions I had with no data. With everything we saw 10 years ago, I
cannot now believe we are considering restricting access to this kind
of data--the kind of data that is important to prevent housing
discrimination.
I have seen what happens when we don't have strong enough protections
against housing discrimination. This is why I have submitted an
amendment to strike section 104 to preserve access to data we need.
With better information and protections, we could have prevented a
crisis in which 12 million people lost their jobs, in which the banks
took the homes of more than 7 million people.
Let's not take away access to this information. Let's not make the
same mistakes we made 10 years ago. I urge my colleagues to join me.
Vote for fairness, vote for equality, vote for inclusion. Vote for
everyone who got burned by the big banks. Vote for folks like Rachelle
who just needed a break, who just needed a fair mortgage loan so they
could buy their first home. Support my amendment to prevent loan and
housing discrimination, to protect the access to data and to protect
the progress we made under Wall Street reform.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I had not planned on talking about the
bill we have before us, S. 2155, but the other day I was listening to
another Member speak, and this Member was talking about how this bill
could threaten and possibly increase the predatory practices of people
who had mobile home loans.
As a person who had a mobile home loan and somebody who lived in a
mobile home park, I thought I would try to speak maybe about the
practical easing--what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. The
truth is, I would go further on regulatory tailoring than we have. We
didn't because we wanted bipartisan agreement on this bill, which we
have.
As a matter of fact, I thank the members on the Banking Committee who
joined with me and other members to make sure we kept the bill tailored
enough so we had bipartisan support.
On mobile homes--we get out here in the Senate, and we talk about
facts and figures. I can talk about the fact that half of my community
banks have ceased to exist in North Carolina since the crisis. I can
talk about a number of people I speak with who can't get loans, but
what I thought I would talk about is my own personal experience as a
16-year-old, 17-year-old kid living in a trailer park working with my
father.
He would do maintenance work. If a house caught on fire or there was
some sort of insurance damage, he would work with the insurance
companies to actually do repair work, and I was his handyman when we
would do these projects. We did not have a whole lot of money. My
father didn't have a lot of cash on hand, so the way we did it is, when
you had this insurance job, you bid on the insurance job. You knew how
much money you would make at the end. Then you go to a bank and get
what is called a 90-day note. Most of these projects were about 60- to
90-day projects, and you would go to a banker whom you had built a
relationship with, and you would ask them to trust you to get this
project done. You would show them the project you were doing, and he
would underwrite a loan that you had to pay back in 90 days. That is
why they called it a 90-day note.
Today, in the postcrisis world, that virtually never happens. Today,
we don't have community banks and personal banking relationships that
people can rely on to get access to capital. Even worse, with all the
community banks and smaller banks consolidating, ceasing to exist,
there are entire areas of North Carolina--a lot of people think North
Carolina is an urban State. The fact is, about half our population,
about 5 million people, live in rural areas. They have been hardest hit
by the consolidation of banks and the ceasing to exist of these sort of
lending institutions out in communities like the community I lived in
when I was 17 years old. They are not getting the money they need to
make ends meet.
What this bill is trying to do is recognize that, of course, after
the financial crisis, there was a regulatory exposure we needed to
address. The problem is, we simply went too far or at least with the
passing of time we now know we can claw back those regulations on
certain banks--particularly community and regional banks. That is all
this bill is intended to do.
As a matter of fact, this bill allows the regulators to go back after
those banks that are under the $250 billion threshold if they determine
that the practices they are involved in are particularly problematic or
may have a systemic impact on the financial system as a whole.
What we are trying to do is make sure we start seeing community banks
pop up in rural areas like the place I lived in outside of Nashville,
TN, where bankers could work with people and give them the resources
they need to pay their bills. Even as late as just a couple of years
ago--we have some folks who are speaking against the bill who said it
was important for us to advance these sorts of changes. As a matter of
fact, one Member said: ``It is important we advance this conversation
to ensure that prudential regulations for regional banks are crafted
appropriately.'' That is what this bill does.
Another Member or maybe the same Member said: ``We all agree that
regional banks are not systemically important.'' Regional banks are the
bigger banks. They would be like BB&T or Fifth Third Bank.
They are not systemically important. Well, then, I guess we can all
agree that the community banks and smaller banks aren't. That is what
this bill is about, some of the midsized regional banks and community
banks. We said we need to tailor it, and that is what this bipartisan
bill does.
Another Member said: ``I continue to believe we will not be
successful in providing regulatory relief to institutions of any size
if we don't have broad, bipartisan consensus.'' That is what this bill
has.
We always talk about the polar environment here and how we can get
nothing done. This is a bill that has had members of the Committee on
Banking, on which I serve, join together to make sure that all we
advanced out of the committee was a bipartisan consensus for regulatory
relief that allows cash to flow to people who need it--community banks,
regional banks that have a more intimate relationship with people who
need access to capital. That is what this bill does. For the life of
me, I can't understand why we can't all agree.
You have these discussions here where it sounds like we are doing
some big-bank relief--not at all. I have a couple of large banking
institutions in North Carolina, and they are going to have to continue
to submit 60,000-page, 100,000-page stress tests and CCAR reports to
make sure they don't create a
[[Page S1542]]
systemic threat. This bill doesn't touch that.
What this bill touches is a part of the ecosystem that is suffering.
What this bill does is reduce the regulatory burden so that guy who
existed back in the midseventies who would give my dad a 90-day note
can now do it and not have to say no because they simply can't afford
to do it either because it affects their portfolio or because they are
spending so much money on regulatory relief that they have to go after
the bigger loans. It is the people at my level at that time back in the
seventies who suffer.
This is a bipartisan bill, it is a responsible bill, and it is a bill
that is going to provide much needed relief.
I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who recognize that
this is a prudent bill, that it is measured. I thank Chairman Crapo for
all the great work he has done to live up to his commitment to the
Members on the other side of the aisle to keep this tailored and to do
exactly what we said we were going to do. I look forward to its
passage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, well, not exactly. Yesterday I spoke about
the big banks that have violated our banking laws time and again, banks
like Wells Fargo and Citigroup. I talked about foreign banks like
Santander and Deutsche Bank--the President's personal German bank, I
might add. Santander, a Spanish bank, has foreclosed on the cars of
American service men and women when they are overseas serving our
country, and we are rewarding that Spanish bank. We are rewarding a
Swiss bank that has broken international law in support of Iran. We are
rewarding these foreign banks.
I liked this bill at the beginning. I have been working on these
issues with Chairman Crapo, whom I respect--I really do--for some
years, and we worked on coming up with a bill that would help community
banks and the midsized regional banks, three of which are located in
the Presiding Officer's boyhood State and my State of Ohio--Fifth
Third, KeyCorp, and Huntington. We wanted to do those things.
You know, in this place, when we work on something to help the small
guy, the big guy thinks: Well, don't leave me out. I want to be part of
this. I want to get my things too.
So we start helping community banks, we start helping the little guy,
and all of a sudden, Wall Street gets its hand out, just like on the
tax bill. I guess I believed my colleagues on the tax bill when they
said it was a middle-class tax cut bill. Well, it kind of didn't end up
that way. By the end, 81 percent of the tax benefits went to the
richest 1 percent.
That is what we do. We start here. We go back home, and we talk about
helping the middle class and helping the little guy. No matter whether
she punches a time clock or works construction, we want to help middle-
income people. But you know what--by the time the lobbyists swoop in,
by the time they are here, and they start talking to their friends and
start doing what they do, then all of a sudden, these bills help the
big guy. They help Wall Street. It is no surprise; it has happened here
before.
I particularly think we would learn about it when it comes to what
happened 10 years ago. There are some pretty smart people in the
Senate, but they have some kind of illness that I don't entirely
understand called collective amnesia. They forget. They forget what
happened 10 years ago.
Where I live, Cleveland, OH, and where the Presiding Officer grew up
in greater Cleveland, in my neighborhood, ZIP Code 44105, in early
2007, in the first half of that year, more people lost their homes
through foreclosure than any other ZIP Code in the United States of
America. The neighborhood that I live in is not a gated community. I
live in an area of about 200 relatively new homes. When I drive about
500 yards in any direction, I see the blight that came because of what
Wall Street and, frankly, this Congress and the regulators, the Bush
regulators--I can mention names; it is all public record--did to our
economy. And 10 years later, we have kind of forgotten about all that.
Well, the people who lost their homes haven't forgotten about it. The
people who lost their jobs haven't forgotten about it. The people who
lost their retirement savings haven't forgotten about it. It is just a
bunch of Members of Congress, a bunch of Republican members of the
Banking Committee, a bunch of Members on that side of the aisle--almost
all of whom, I believe, are supporting this bill--they seem to have
forgotten what happened to the economy 10 years ago.
After starting with a relatively simple and benign, let's help the
community banks and the credit unions--which I want to do, too, and
have a voting record to prove it--and help some of the smaller
regionals, such as Huntington and Fifth Third and Key Corp in my State,
it just sort of got out of hand.
Well, now they are coming back and saying: Well, we will make a
couple of changes. Let's talk about these couple of changes that
Houdini would be proud of, sort of some sleight-of-hand kinds of
changes. In fact, these changes have made the bill worse, and I will
explain.
Last September, we learned that Equifax had allowed hackers to
exploit a known security flaw and make off with names, birth dates,
Social Security numbers, and all matter of private information of 143
millions Americans. There are probably 50 people in the Gallery. If the
national averages hold out, 25 of them were wronged by Equifax. They
were fraudulently or incompetently--perhaps through incompetence--
attacked by Equifax. In my State, it was about 5 million people. Around
the country, it was about 143 million. In fact, most of the people in
the Gallery are adults, so it is more than half the adult population
that was wronged by Equifax. Half the country is vulnerable to identity
theft.
Americans are furious with Equifax, as they should be, but this
amendment that apparently is in the substitute bill for reasons I can't
fathom includes provisions designed to help Equifax. It is not just
that this body doesn't punish Equifax and that these executives have no
contrition--of course nobody went to jail.
The people we send to jail in this country--we almost never send
people to jail for financial fraud. They dress well, they are
sophisticated, they belong to the right country clubs, and they would
never go to jail. Let me back off on that for a moment and talk again
about Equifax.
Equifax and other credit reporting agencies apparently have been
upset about a proposal to give men and women in the military credit
monitoring. Think of that. Equifax executives didn't like that there
was a proposal to give the people serving this country credit
monitoring.
I understand what Santander did; they repossessed autos of men and
women from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton and from other
places who were overseas serving. They repossessed their cars, and we
rewarded them, so I guess Equifax thought, well, there is a good trend
here, a good precedent there. We don't want to give men and women in
the military credit monitoring.
So we have an amendment to fix that. A small gesture to the people
who serve our country, though, seemed too much for the Republicans and
too much for Equifax. In exchange for this token benefit, they demanded
that consumers and servicemembers give up their right to take Equifax
to court. So Equifax is willing to do a little bit for people, just a
little bit, but damn it, you can't sue us then. That was the deal--you
can't sue us. We will give you a little bit of credit monitoring, but
in return, you can't sue us for anything. I am not a lawyer, but that
is called a right to action. So the next time the company's
recklessness exposes sensitive financial data, sorry, you can't sue us.
Sorry about that; that is the way it goes.
In the end, Equifax--shocking--got exactly what it wanted. Equifax
let your data loose and ruined your credit score, but you won't be able
to sue them. Sorry about that.
It gets worse. Equifax--a company that can't even safely store
consumers' data--and that is their job; that is what they are hired to
do, even though we don't individually choose them. The company spent
nearly as much on executive salaries as it did on cyber security. So
this company's job is to protect private data, but they didn't really
invest that much in cyber security
[[Page S1543]]
because, for whatever reason, they paid their executives about the same
amount of money.
Now Equifax wants in on the credit-scoring business. Along with two
other major credit reporting agencies, it has created a product to
compete with Fair Isaac's FICO score.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency has a process in place to try to
broaden the factors it looks at in determining creditworthiness, but,
as Director Mel Watt testified in the Banking Committee, it is
complicated and it is time-consuming. Understandably, FHFA wants to get
it right, and so do the lenders that sell loans to Fannie and Freddie.
But instead of allowing FHFA to take the time it needs to get it right,
this bill ignores that, and it sets up its own process. We have not
taken any testimony on this legislation from market participants or
from the government agency. I have my hunch, though, as to who is
pushing for it. Guess who is one of the biggest beneficiaries of this
change. The pages would know the answer to that, if they are listening.
Equifax, of course.
I know my colleagues were well-intentioned. It would be great if we
had additional ways of determining whether someone is creditworthy and
if we could give more Americans the opportunity to become homeowners.
But determining creditworthiness and balancing access to credit with
the need to make sure we don't end up with millions of foreclosures is
complicated. That is why we have FHFA, and that is why we have a
process in place.
We know there are problems with the current system, and more data
would improve our efforts to combat discrimination in housing. The
Center for Investigative Reporting just completed a valuable study of
tens of millions of mortgage records and found out that across the
country, people of color are far more likely to be turned down for a
loan, even when you take into account factors like income and the size
of the loan. I will repeat that. Holding all things equal except for
race, people of color are far more likely to be turned down for a loan.
We know that.
The trade associations for lenders argued that the study was flawed
because more data--data like credit scores and debt-to-income ratios--
was needed to prove discrimination. The good news is that Dodd-Frank
did that. It required this very kind of data to be collected, and
beginning in January, banks and credit unions began reporting it.
Problem solved, right? Well, once the more detailed data set is
available and large enough, watchdogs can then undertake better
analysis, target the bad actors, and allow the good lenders--and most
of them are--to continue with their business without a regulator
knocking on their door. But who are we kidding? This bill wants to do
away with that too. I thought we had solved the problem. The substitute
would repeal the reporting required by Dodd-Frank for 85 percent of all
banks.
Backers of the substitute will claim it has addressed complaints that
this effort will undermine enforcement of civil rights laws, but it
hasn't. Backers will point to a provision which says that banks that
flunk the Community Reinvestment Act exam and get a rating of
substantial noncompliance are ineligible for the reduced reporting of
mortgage data. That sounds good, but in all of 2017, out of the
thousands of Community Reinvestment Act exams, only two banks out of
thousands flunked. When we have reason to believe banks all across the
country are discriminating in their lending, even if it is
unintentional--and sometimes it is--looking at data from two banks out
of thousands isn't going to tell us a whole lot.
The substitute would maintain current laws for banks that are given a
``needs to improve'' rating on their CRA exam over two consecutive exam
cycles. Let's say a bank is engaged in discriminatory lending. The
examiner gives it a ``needs to improve'' rating. This amendment says:
No harm, no foul; the first one is free. Really? A few years later,
when the next exam rolls around, if the bank is still discriminating,
only then will it have to submit to the amount of data required today.
So this amendment says it is OK for a bank to engage in legally
sanctioned discrimination for years before it faces any consequences.
Why would we do that in this bill?
In sharp contrast to the slow-motion response to discrimination, when
it is the bank that wants the data from the Federal Government, the
sponsors of this bill can't move fast enough. It is like everything
around here--when Wall Street says ``jump,'' most of this Senate jumps,
and frankly, straight down the hall in the House of Representatives,
they jump faster and higher.
There was a bill introduced just this Monday, referred to the Finance
Committee, that would allow credit card companies to tap the Social
Security Administration database to verify identities. There hasn't
been a hearing on it, and it hasn't gotten attention, but guess what--
it is in the substitute bill. So the banking majority can move very
fast when it comes to helping the banks; they can't move so fast when
it comes to prohibiting discrimination against people of color. I
suppose I understand why, but that is pretty outrageous. The demand on
SSA would explode. Will the system be able to handle it? Will the
public interfere? Will this public interface be one more way that
hackers could gain access to the Social Security database? I don't know
because there has been no time for the Finance Committee to look at
this bill. Protecting people's Social Security numbers is the last
place--the last place--where we should be rushing things to please the
big banks.
Whether it is a State as conservative as Tennessee or as liberal as
California, I am guessing most Americans don't want Congress to rush
something through that might expose their Social Security numbers
without really understanding it through congressional hearings and
examination.
This would all be bad enough, but it is not just Equifax that gets
goodies in this bill. This bill is a gift to foreign megabanks.
Yesterday we saw a new provision on foreign banks included in the
substitute to clarify the legislation, but it doesn't fix the issue.
The substitute includes a figleaf to try to convince the public that
this bill doesn't do what it actually does do.
This provision provides some vague and ambiguous language that puts
the question to the Fed. In this bill, we say: You can regulate the
foreign banks or you don't have to regulate the foreign banks; it is up
to the new Federal regulators. It is your choice. The legislation
doesn't require the Fed to keep strong rules in place that are already
in place. It doesn't stop the foreign banks from suing the Fed if it
doesn't obey the request.
We are expected to trust Randal Quarles to be tough on foreign
banks--most of you don't know Randal Quarles. I have had conversations
with him. He is a smart man. He is well educated. He is a nice guy--but
that is not a bet I want to make. That is not a bet Congress should
make.
Just this week, Governor Quarles spoke at an international banking
conference, and he promised--it was an international banking
conference. That would probably not be with Wells Fargo, probably not
JPMorgan Chase, probably not Bank of America; it would probably be with
Santander, UBS, Swiss Bank, or Barclays--the British bank--or the
President's personal bank, the German bank, Deutsche Bank. Those are
who attended. He said, if we really want to fix the foreign bank
issue--he said he plans to deregulate those foreign banks.
I know the supporters of this bill think they can sort of obfuscate--
I don't think they are lying. I think they are just obfuscating and not
really being straightforward about what this bill does for foreign
banks, and I know they did this for foreign banks because I asked
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin--Senator Corker was in the room with the
Banking Committee--and he said: Yes, we plan to deregulate the foreign
banks.
We know that. We know that from other former regulators: Paul
Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve appointed by both President
Carter and President Reagan; we know that from people like Sarah Bloom
Raskin, who was a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal
Reserve; we know that from professors and other regulators. I know
Sheila Bair, a Republican nominee appointed by President Bush to run
the FDIC, is concerned about this bill. We know that.
So if we want to fix the foreign bank issue, let's just adopt my
amendment. Let's fix it. It is simple: No favors for
[[Page S1544]]
the biggest global banks here in the United States. Don't give the
regulators the option because we know whom the regulators for the banks
are. We know most of the regulators for the banks used to work on Wall
Street. You go to the White House, and the White House looks like a
retreat for Wall Street executives.
We want to write strong laws, clear laws. We don't need to place
blind trust in the people who have failed us before--Quarles, Mick
Mulvaney, Otting, and Mnuchin. We are expecting these people who have
been strong in their public announcements to be right in their public
actions? We are entrusting these people who have profited--I could name
the names. We are entrusting these people who now have public service
jobs and who have profited from Wall Street malfeasance to protect our
economy and our country from Wall Street malfeasance.
I take the side of Paul Volcker, Sheila Bair, Tom Hoenig, Barney
Frank, Sarah Bloom Raskin, Phil Angelides, Antonio Weiss, and Michael
Barr. They are all people who have counseled us--all good public
officials, all former regulators. Not quite half, but a number of them
are Republicans, and some are Democrats. They are all people who
counseled us to vote no on this bill and whose concerns have not been
addressed by this substitute.
In addition, the substitute raises $675 million to pay for the
privilege of deregulating the banks, but all it could manage on lead
poisoning in housing was a report from HUD.
Where are our priorities? The Congressional Budget Office said this
bill makes it more likely they will need a bailout, more likely to lead
to a bailout for the big banks. So $675 million of taxpayer money is
squandered instead of doing infrastructure, instead of dealing with
lead. That is part of the issue we dealt with in our committee. That is
why I supported Secretary Carson for his confirmation, because I
thought he was going to do something about lead. Shame on me for
believing that, when I have seen nothing so far.
Instead of those $675 million going to Wall Street, wouldn't it be
great if we could direct those hundreds of millions of dollars to
prevent children from developing developmental disabilities brought on
by lead?
Remember, I talked about my ZIP Code, 44105. Look at those houses.
Drive through Cleveland. Drive through Memphis. Drive through Omaha.
Drive through all kinds of cities in this country. You will see houses
that were built in 1950 or before, and 80 or 90 percent of them have
toxic levels of lead. We have sentenced millions of American children
to live in those homes.
This is called the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. We
have done nothing in this committee for the last 5 years--not a damn
thing--about getting that lead out of those homes and stopping the
poisoning of children. We could be doing that but instead we are giving
more to Wall Street.
This substitute doesn't make this bill better. By papering over its
fundamental problems, by treating servicemembers as second-class
citizens--think of Santander, think of the amendment Senator Reed from
Rhode Island is working on--we are opening up the Social Security
system to possible threats. It represents a step backward.
I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute and the underlying
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I enjoyed listening to the comments of
my friend from Ohio. I think you guys are going to like the amendment I
am getting ready to offer.
Today I rise to offer an amendment to S. 2155--the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act--of which I am a
cosponsor.
My amendment is a simple correction that would clarify the intent of
this original bill as it relates to custodial banks.
As originally introduced, section 402 was intended to provide better
tailored capital requirements for true custodial banks. However, there
have been concerns raised that the current definition of this section,
following revisions during the committee consideration, could open this
provision to a wider group of financial institutions.
I know that was not the intent of my colleagues, and this technical
correction amendment makes clear that section 402 applies only when the
primary focus of the banking organization is custodial activities.
Section 402 is not intended to provide relief to an organization
engaged in consumer banking, investment banking, or other businesses,
and that also happens to have some custodial business or a banking
subsidiary that engages in custodial activities.
In conclusion, section 402 was intended as a very narrowly tailored
provision, focused on true custodial banks. This technical correction
amendment would clarify the scope of 402.
I am requesting a vote and urge my colleagues to support adoption of
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Carol Seppilu
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as many of my colleagues know, one of
my favorite parts of the week is coming down to the Senate floor to
recognize somebody special in my State, somebody we refer to as our
``Alaskan of the Week.'' It is one of the most fulfilling things I do
all week, to get to talk about people who make my State very, very
special.
I know many of you--people in the Gallery--have seen Alaska on TV or
have read about it in the newspapers, but there is no substitute for
being there. We want you all to come. It would be the trip of a
lifetime, particularly now.
What is going on in Alaska right now, one of the highlights of the
entire year, is the Iditarod--the ``last great race'' in the world--
which is in full throttle. When you visit, Alaska will change your
life--the wilderness, the wildlife, the quiet, the sense of unbridled
freedom, the liberty, and the majesty. It is all there. It is all
there, so come on, come on and visit.
Also, when you visit, you will realize that Alaska is home to some of
the most courageous, hard-working, and tenacious people in the world,
many of whom have overcome tremendous odds and are determined to
inspire others to live a full and healthy life.
Madam President, I would like to take you, take everybody listening,
to Nome, AK, and tell you about Carol Seppilu, someone who I believe
personifies determination and perseverance and who is an inspiration to
us all and is this week's Alaskan of the Week.
Carol lives in Nome--a rugged, unique, and beautiful town in Alaska's
northwest, about 500 miles from Anchorage. You might have heard of
Nome. The reality show ``Gold Rush Alaska'' was filmed there, and it is
also the finish for the Iditarod.
Pretty soon, if you are watching on TV--our best guess is early next
week--the mushers and the dozens of dogs--that, by the way, love the
race. They love the race--will begin to cross the finish line. People
from all over our State, but really people from all over the world,
will be there to greet them as they finish this incredible race, to
greet them and congratulate them. We call it the ``last great race,''
and it finishes at Nome.
There is no place like Nome, we like to say in Alaska. If you live in
Nome, you might have seen Carol running in winter, spring, summer, and
fall. Carol runs through the streets and into the mountains surrounding
Nome. It is one of the ways that she has found purpose in her life,
which in turn she has used to help others, to inspire others.
Like a lot of us, Carol had big dreams when she was growing up. She
was interested in science and space. She was actually interested in
being an astrophysicist. Then, as sometimes happens to young kids, her
life took a bit of a turn. She got in with the wrong crowd and started
drinking and using drugs, and her life lost meaning.
This is a difficult subject to talk about on the Senate floor, but we
must. We must. Carol wants us to. Alaska has the second highest suicide
rate in the country, and it has the highest teen suicide rate in the
entire
[[Page S1545]]
Nation. The suicide rate among Alaska Native teens is also very, very
high--tragically high, horribly high. When it comes to suicide, silence
is deadly.
Carol knows all about this. When she was 16, she tried to end her
life by shooting herself. After the gun went off, she remembers
thinking: Dear God, save me. I don't want to die anymore.
Then she described how, during this awful incident, her ancestors
came to her, her elders, telling her that she was going to be OK and
that she had a reason to live. She did live. Badly scarred, after
having multiple operations on her face, recovery has not been easy for
Carol, but she has made it through. She has toughed it out.
What she did was remarkable and incredible. She began to speak about
suicide at schools. She was a member of the State's Suicide Prevention
Council. Eventually, she got a job at an elders' home, where she is
currently the cultural activities specialist. She organizes Alaska
Native dances. She cooks traditional Alaska Native food for her elders.
Moose and muskox soup is their favorite. I think Senator Murkowski is
going to let us enjoy a little muskox stew over lunch today, so Carol
will be pleased about that.
But as the years went by, she again experienced depression, which is
not uncommon. She didn't feel like getting out of bed. She was
unhealthy. But then again, in 2014, more inspiration--again,
incredible. A high school friend who was a runner urged Carol to try
it. You are not feeling healthy? You are feeling sad? Go out, try to
get a run in. At first, when she did it, she could only go a few
blocks. Eventually the blocks turned into miles, which is even more
challenging for her because of some of her injuries. Nonetheless, she
persevered.
We are seeing a theme in her life. She began to get healthy and to
feel good about herself again. Again, she found her reason to live.
Guess what. She has turned into an amazing athlete. She began to enter
races in 2015 when she ran the local 8-mile Dexter Challenge. ``I
thought, if I do eight miles, I could do a half marathon,'' she said.
And then she did.
Carol didn't stop there. Now she is running ultramarathons across the
country--50 miles in Iowa, multiple ultramarathons in Utah, a 50K in
Washington State. Early last month, she was running a 50K in Texas
when, about 5 miles in, she broke her ankle, but that didn't stop her.
She finished even with a broken ankle and is recovering. We are seeing
a woman, a young lady of perseverance. Her ultimate goal is to do an
ultramarathon in every State in America.
Because of Carol's scars, she wears a mask. In August she decided
that it was too cumbersome to wear the mask while running, so during a
race in Alaska--the very challenging 50-mile Resurrection Pass
ultramarathon--she took it off, and it was liberating for her. Here is
the beautiful thing: Everybody--everybody--was so supportive, so she
doesn't run with a mask anymore.
It is not only runners who are supportive of Carol; she has gotten
people in her hometown, the town of Nome, to start running themselves.
Across the State, people approach her wherever she goes, and they tell
her they have heard about her, they have heard about her life, and if
she has made it through her challenge, they can too. In other words,
she is an inspiration. She has become an inspiration throughout Alaska
to so many people. She said:
I think I'm helping other people overcome difficulties.
They tell me I'm inspiring them to keep going. So that's why
I believe I'm here now--to help others.
That is Carol's quote.
So, Carol, for your inspiration to so many in our great State, for
all you have done and all you continue to do, we are proud of you and
thank you for being our Alaskan of the Week this week, as the Iditarod
finishes up in your hometown of Nome, AK.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Remembering Charley Thone
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great public
servant who passed away last night, former Member of Congress and
Nebraska Governor Charley Thone.
I think the Omaha World-Herald summed up his outlook well:
Official biographies list Thone's first name as Charles.
But Nebraskans knew him better as Charley, the unpretentious
farm boy who adopted ``Accentuate the Positive'' as his
personal theme song.
Governor Thone was born near Hartington, NE. He served our country in
the U.S. Army Infantry during World War II. While serving in the House
of Representatives, then-Congressman Thone fought on behalf of farmers
and ranchers as a member of the House Agriculture Committee. When
tragedy struck with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he
served on the Warren Commission to investigate the death of our
President.
As Governor of Nebraska, his love of our State was always evident
during his time in office. He guided Nebraska during a tough farm
economy in the 1970s, but he always looked ahead and supported others.
Governor Thone led by example, and he empowered and encouraged others.
He was a mentor to a Nebraska woman named Kay Orr, who became his chief
of staff and then went on to be the first woman Governor of Nebraska.
Governor Orr, herself, has said she would not have been Governor had it
not been for the opportunities Governor Thone had given her along the
way.
The legacy of service and the mark Governor Thone left on Nebraska
will never be forgotten. The motto that he held so dear, ``accentuate
the positive,'' was a good one. It reminds us to find the good in every
person and every moment. His positivity made Nebraska a better place
both while he served and afterward as he worked in his community.
Governor Thone served the State of Nebraska with dignity. He was an
exemplary public servant and a dear friend to my father and to me.
I join all Nebraskans in praying for his wife, Ruth, and the entire
Thone family.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 2151, as Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a modification to amendment No.
2151 to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--IMPROVING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT
Sec. 101. Minimum standards for residential mortgage loans.
Sec. 102. Safeguarding access to habitat for humanity homes.
Sec. 103. Exemption from appraisals of real property located in rural
areas.
Sec. 104. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act adjustment and study.
Sec. 105. Credit union residential loans.
Sec. 106. Eliminating barriers to jobs for loan originators.
Sec. 107. Protecting access to manufactured homes.
Sec. 108. Escrow requirements relating to certain consumer credit
transactions.
Sec. 109. No wait for lower mortgage rates.
TITLE II--REGULATORY RELIEF AND PROTECTING CONSUMER ACCESS TO CREDIT
Sec. 201. Capital simplification for qualifying community banks.
Sec. 202. Limited exception for reciprocal deposits.
Sec. 203. Community bank relief.
Sec. 204. Removing naming restrictions.
Sec. 205. Short form call reports.
Sec. 206. Option for Federal savings associations to operate as covered
savings associations.
[[Page S1546]]
Sec. 207. Small bank holding company policy statement.
Sec. 208. Application of the Expedited Funds Availability Act.
Sec. 209. Small public housing agencies.
Sec. 210. Examination cycle.
Sec. 211. International insurance capital standards accountability.
Sec. 212. Budget transparency for the NCUA.
Sec. 213. Making online banking initiation legal and easy.
Sec. 214. Promoting construction and development on Main Street.
Sec. 215. Reducing identity fraud.
Sec. 216. Treasury report on risks of cyber threats.
Sec. 217. Discretionary surplus funds.
TITLE III--PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, CONSUMERS, AND HOMEOWNERS
Sec. 301. Protecting consumers' credit.
Sec. 302. Protecting veterans' credit.
Sec. 303. Immunity from suit for disclosure of financial exploitation
of senior citizens.
Sec. 304. Restoration of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of
2009.
Sec. 305. Remediating lead and asbestos hazards.
Sec. 306. Family self-sufficiency program.
Sec. 307. Property Assessed Clean Energy financing.
Sec. 308. GAO report on consumer reporting agencies.
Sec. 309. Protecting veterans from predatory lending.
Sec. 310. Credit score competition.
Sec. 311. GAO report on Puerto Rico foreclosures.
Sec. 312. Report on children's lead-based paint hazard prevention and
abatement.
Sec. 313. Foreclosure relief and extension for servicemembers.
TITLE IV--TAILORING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
Sec. 401. Enhanced supervision and prudential standards for certain
bank holding companies.
Sec. 402. Supplementary leverage ratio for custodial banks.
Sec. 403. Treatment of certain municipal obligations.
TITLE V--ENCOURAGING CAPITAL FORMATION
Sec. 501. National securities exchange regulatory parity.
Sec. 502. SEC study on algorithmic trading.
Sec. 503. Annual review of government-business forum on capital
formation.
Sec. 504. Supporting America's innovators.
Sec. 505. Securities and Exchange Commission overpayment credit.
Sec. 506. U.S. territories investor protection.
Sec. 507. Encouraging employee ownership.
Sec. 508. Improving access to capital.
Sec. 509. Parity for closed-end companies regarding offering and proxy
rules.
TITLE VI--PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENT BORROWERS
Sec. 601. Protections in the event of death or bankruptcy.
Sec. 602. Rehabilitation of private education loans.
Sec. 603. Best practices for higher education financial literacy.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate federal banking agency; company; depository
institution; depository institution holding company.--The
terms ``appropriate Federal banking agency'', ``company'',
``depository institution'', and ``depository institution
holding company'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813).
(2) Bank holding company.--The term ``bank holding
company'' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841).
TITLE I--IMPROVING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT
SEC. 101. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOANS.
Section 129C(b)(2) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1639c(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Safe harbor.--
``(i) Definitions.--In this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `covered institution' means an insured
depository institution or an insured credit union that,
together with its affiliates, has less than $10,000,000,000
in total consolidated assets;
``(II) the term `insured credit union' has the meaning
given the term in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act
(12 U.S.C. 1752);
``(III) the term `insured depository institution' has the
meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813);
``(IV) the term `interest-only' means that, under the terms
of the legal obligation, one or more of the periodic payments
may be applied solely to accrued interest and not to loan
principal; and
``(V) the term `negative amortization' means payment of
periodic payments that will result in an increase in the
principal balance under the terms of the legal obligation.
``(ii) Safe harbor.--In this section--
``(I) the term `qualified mortgage' includes any
residential mortgage loan--
``(aa) that is originated and retained in portfolio by a
covered institution;
``(bb) that is in compliance with the limitations with
respect to prepayment penalties described in subsections
(c)(1) and (c)(3);
``(cc) that is in compliance with the requirements of
clause (vii) of subparagraph (A);
``(dd) that does not have negative amortization or
interest-only features; and
``(ee) for which the covered institution considers and
documents the debt, income, and financial resources of the
consumer in accordance with clause (iv); and
``(II) a residential mortgage loan described in subclause
(I) shall be deemed to meet the requirements of subsection
(a).
``(iii) Exception for certain transfers.--A residential
mortgage loan described in clause (ii)(I) shall not qualify
for the safe harbor under clause (ii) if the legal title to
the residential mortgage loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise
transferred to another person unless the residential mortgage
loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred--
``(I) to another person by reason of the bankruptcy or
failure of a covered institution;
``(II) to a covered institution so long as the loan is
retained in portfolio by the covered institution to which the
loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred;
``(III) pursuant to a merger of a covered institution with
another person or the acquisition of a covered institution by
another person or of another person by a covered institution,
so long as the loan is retained in portfolio by the person to
whom the loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred; or
``(IV) to a wholly owned subsidiary of a covered
institution, provided that, after the sale, assignment, or
transfer, the residential mortgage loan is considered to be
an asset of the covered institution for regulatory accounting
purposes.
``(iv) Consideration and documentation requirements.--The
consideration and documentation requirements described in
clause (ii)(I)(ee) shall--
``(I) not be construed to require compliance with, or
documentation in accordance with, appendix Q to part 1026 of
title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
regulation; and
``(II) be construed to permit multiple methods of
documentation.''.
SEC. 102. SAFEGUARDING ACCESS TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOMES.
Section 129E(i)(2) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1639e(i)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and adjusting the margins
accordingly;
(2) in the matter preceding clause (i), as so redesignated,
by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--For purposes of''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Rule of construction related to appraisal
donations.--If a fee appraiser voluntarily donates appraisal
services to an organization eligible to receive tax-
deductible charitable contributions, such voluntary donation
shall be considered customary and reasonable for the purposes
of paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 103. EXEMPTION FROM APPRAISALS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
IN RURAL AREAS.
Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 3331 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1127. EXEMPTION FROM APPRAISALS OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED
IN RURAL AREAS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `mortgage originator' has the meaning given
the term in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15
U.S.C. 1602); and
``(2) the term `transaction value' means the amount of a
loan or extension of credit, including a loan or extension of
credit that is part of a pool of loans or extensions of
credit.
``(b) Appraisal Not Required.--Except as provided in
subsection (d), notwithstanding any other provision of law,
an appraisal in connection with a federally related
transaction involving real property or an interest in real
property is not required if--
``(1) the real property or interest in real property is
located in a rural area, as described in section
1026.35(b)(2)(iv)(A) of title 12, Code of Federal
Regulations;
``(2) not later than 3 days after the date on which the
Closing Disclosure Form, made in accordance with the final
rule of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection entitled
`Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in
Lending Act (Regulation Z)' (78 Fed. Reg. 79730 (December 31,
2013)), relating to the federally related transaction is
given to the consumer, the mortgage originator or its agent,
directly or indirectly--
``(A) has contacted not fewer than 3 State certified
appraisers or State licensed appraisers, as applicable, on
the mortgage originator's approved appraiser list in the
market area in accordance with part 226 of title 12, Code of
Federal Regulations; and
``(B) has documented that no State certified appraiser or
State licensed appraiser, as applicable, was available within
5 business days beyond customary and reasonable fee and
timeliness standards for comparable appraisal assignments, as
documented by the mortgage originator or its agent;
``(3) the transaction value is less than $400,000; and
[[Page S1547]]
``(4) the mortgage originator is subject to oversight by a
Federal financial institutions regulatory agency.
``(c) Sale, Assignment, or Transfer.--A mortgage originator
that makes a loan without an appraisal under the terms of
subsection (b) shall not sell, assign, or otherwise transfer
legal title to the loan unless--
``(1) the loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred
to another person by reason of the bankruptcy or failure of
the mortgage originator;
``(2) the loan is sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred
to another person regulated by a Federal financial
institutions regulatory agency, so long as the loan is
retained in portfolio by the person;
``(3) the sale, assignment, or transfer is pursuant to a
merger of the mortgage originator with another person or the
acquisition of the mortgage originator by another person or
of another person by the mortgage originator; or
``(4) the sale, loan, or transfer is to a wholly owned
subsidiary of the mortgage originator, provided that, after
the sale, assignment, or transfer, the loan is considered to
be an asset of the mortgage originator for regulatory
accounting purposes.
``(d) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply if--
``(1) a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency
requires an appraisal under section 225.63(c), 323.3(c),
34.43(c), or 722.3(e) of title 12, Code of Federal
Regulations; or
``(2) the loan is a high-cost mortgage, as defined in
section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602).
``(e) Anti-Evasion.--Each Federal financial institutions
regulatory agency shall ensure that any mortgage originator
that the Federal financial institutions regulatory agency
oversees that makes a significant amount of loans under
subsection (b) is complying with the requirements of
subsection (b)(2) with respect to each loan.''.
SEC. 104. HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT ADJUSTMENT AND STUDY.
(a) In General.--Section 304 of the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as paragraph (3) and
adjusting the margins accordingly;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (3), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(i) Exemptions.--
``(1) Closed-end mortgage loans.--With respect to an
insured depository institution or insured credit union, the
requirements of paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b)
shall not apply with respect to closed-end mortgage loans if
the insured depository institution or insured credit union
originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each
of the 2 preceding calendar years.
``(2) Open-end lines of credit.--With respect to an insured
depository institution or insured credit union, the
requirements of paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b)
shall not apply with respect to open-end lines of credit if
the insured depository institution or insured credit union
originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of
the 2 preceding calendar years.
``(3) Required compliance.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)
and (2), an insured depository institution shall comply with
paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) if the insured
depository institution has received a rating of `needs to
improve record of meeting community credit needs' during each
of its 2 most recent examinations or a rating of `substantial
noncompliance in meeting community credit needs' on its most
recent examination under section 807(b)(2) of the Community
Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2906(b)(2)).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `insured credit union' has the meaning given
the term in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1752); and
``(2) the term `insured depository institution' has the
meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).''.
(b) Lookback Study.--
(1) Study.--Not earlier than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to evaluate the impact of the
amendments made by subsection (a) on the amount of data
available under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) at the national and local level.
(2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives a report that
includes the findings and conclusions of the Comptroller
General with respect to the study required under paragraph
(1).
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 304(i)(3) of the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, as so redesignated by
subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking ``section
303(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section 303(3)(A)''.
SEC. 105. CREDIT UNION RESIDENTIAL LOANS.
(a) Removal From Member Business Loan Limitation.--Section
107A(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1757a(c)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``that is the
primary residence of a member''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section or the
amendment made by this section shall preclude the National
Credit Union Administration from treating an extension of
credit that is fully secured by a lien on a 1- to 4-family
dwelling that is not the primary residence of a member as a
member business loan for purposes other than the member
business loan limitation requirements under section 107A of
the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757a).
SEC. 106. ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO JOBS FOR LOAN ORIGINATORS.
(a) In General.--The S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 1518. EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION OF LOAN ORIGINATORS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Application state.--The term `application State'
means a State in which a registered loan originator or a
State-licensed loan originator seeks to be licensed.
``(2) State-licensed mortgage company.--The term `State-
licensed mortgage company' means an entity that is licensed
or registered under the law of any State to engage in
residential mortgage loan origination and processing
activities.
``(b) Temporary Authority To Originate Loans for Loan
Originators Moving From a Depository Institution to a Non-
Depository Institution.--
``(1) In general.--Upon becoming employed by a State-
licensed mortgage company, an individual who is a registered
loan originator shall be deemed to have temporary authority
to act as a loan originator in an application State for the
period described in paragraph (2) if the individual--
``(A) has not had--
``(i) an application for a loan originator license denied;
or
``(ii) a loan originator license revoked or suspended in
any governmental jurisdiction;
``(B) has not been subject to, or served with, a cease and
desist order--
``(i) in any governmental jurisdiction; or
``(ii) under section 1514(c);
``(C) has not been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony
that would preclude licensure under the law of the
application State;
``(D) has submitted an application to be a State-licensed
loan originator in the application State; and
``(E) was registered in the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing
System and Registry as a loan originator during the 1-year
period preceding the date on which the information required
under section 1505(a) is submitted.
``(2) Period.--The period described in this paragraph shall
begin on the date on which an individual described in
paragraph (1) submits the information required under section
1505(a) and shall end on the earliest of the date--
``(A) on which the individual withdraws the application to
be a State-licensed loan originator in the application State;
``(B) on which the application State denies, or issues a
notice of intent to deny, the application;
``(C) on which the application State grants a State
license; or
``(D) that is 120 days after the date on which the
individual submits the application, if the application is
listed on the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry as incomplete.
``(c) Temporary Authority To Originate Loans for State-
Licensed Loan Originators Moving Interstate.--
``(1) In general.--A State-licensed loan originator shall
be deemed to have temporary authority to act as a loan
originator in an application State for the period described
in paragraph (2) if the State-licensed loan originator--
``(A) meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B),
(C), and (D) of subsection (b)(1);
``(B) is employed by a State-licensed mortgage company in
the application State; and
``(C) was licensed in a State that is not the application
State during the 30-day period preceding the date on which
the information required under section 1505(a) was submitted
in connection with the application submitted to the
application State.
``(2) Period.--The period described in this paragraph shall
begin on the date on which the State-licensed loan originator
submits the information required under section 1505(a) in
connection with the application submitted to the application
State and end on the earliest of the date--
``(A) on which the State-licensed loan originator withdraws
the application to be a State-licensed loan originator in the
application State;
``(B) on which the application State denies, or issues a
notice of intent to deny, the application;
``(C) on which the application State grants a State
license; or
``(D) that is 120 days after the date on which the State-
licensed loan originator submits the application, if the
application is listed on the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing
System and Registry as incomplete.
``(d) Applicability.--
``(1) Employer of loan originators.--Any person employing
an individual who is deemed to have temporary authority to
act as a loan originator in an application State under this
section shall be subject to the requirements of this title
and to applicable State law to the same extent as if that
individual was a State-licensed loan originator licensed by
the application State.
``(2) Engaging in mortgage loan activities.--Any individual
who is deemed to have
[[Page S1548]]
temporary authority to act as a loan originator in an
application State under this section and who engages in
residential mortgage loan origination activities shall be
subject to the requirements of this title and to applicable
State law to the same extent as if that individual was a
State-licensed loan originator licensed by the application
State.''.
(b) Table of Contents Amendment.--Section 1(b) of the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 4501
note) is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1517 the following:
``Sec. 1518. Employment transition of loan originators.''.
(c) Civil Liability.--Section 1513 of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage
Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5112) is amended by striking
``persons who are loan originators or are applying for
licensing or registration as loan originators.'' and
inserting ``persons who--
``(1) have applied, are applying, or are licensed or
registered through the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System
and Registry; and
``(2) work in an industry with respect to which persons
were licensed or registered through the Nationwide Mortgage
Licensing System and Registry on the date of enactment of the
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection
Act.''.
(d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the date that is 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 107. PROTECTING ACCESS TO MANUFACTURED HOMES.
Section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating the second subsection (cc) (relating
to definitions relating to mortgage origination and
residential mortgage loans) and subsection (dd) as
subsections (dd) and (ee), respectively; and
(2) in paragraph (2) of subsection (dd), as so
redesignated, by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) does not include any person who is--
``(i) not otherwise described in subparagraph (A) or (B)
and who performs purely administrative or clerical tasks on
behalf of a person who is described in any such subparagraph;
or
``(ii) a retailer of manufactured or modular homes or an
employee of the retailer if the retailer or employee, as
applicable--
``(I) does not receive compensation or gain for engaging in
activities described in subparagraph (A) that is in excess of
any compensation or gain received in a comparable cash
transaction;
``(II) discloses to the consumer--
``(aa) in writing any corporate affiliation with any
creditor; and
``(bb) if the retailer has a corporate affiliation with any
creditor, at least 1 unaffiliated creditor; and
``(III) does not directly negotiate with the consumer or
lender on loan terms (including rates, fees, and other
costs).''.
SEC. 108. ESCROW REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CERTAIN CONSUMER
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS.
Section 129D of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639d)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as
subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively, and adjusting
the margins accordingly;
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), as so
redesignated, by striking ``The Board'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Bureau'';
(C) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by striking ``the
Board'' each place that term appears and inserting ``the
Bureau''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Treatment of loans held by smaller institutions.--The
Bureau shall, by regulation, exempt from the requirements of
subsection (a) any loan made by an insured depository
institution or an insured credit union secured by a first
lien on the principal dwelling of a consumer if--
``(A) the insured depository institution or insured credit
union has assets of $10,000,000,000 or less;
``(B) during the preceding calendar year, the insured
depository institution or insured credit union and its
affiliates originated 1,000 or fewer loans secured by a first
lien on a principal dwelling; and
``(C) the transaction satisfies the criteria in sections
1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(A), 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(D), and
1026.35(b)(2)(v) of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation.''; and
(2) in subsection (i), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Insured credit union.--The term `insured credit
union' has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752).
``(4) Insured depository institution.--The term `insured
depository institution' has the meaning given the term in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813).''.
SEC. 109. NO WAIT FOR LOWER MORTGAGE RATES.
(a) In General.--Section 129(b) of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1639(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) No wait for lower rate.--If a creditor extends to a
consumer a second offer of credit with a lower annual
percentage rate, the transaction may be consummated without
regard to the period specified in paragraph (1) with respect
to the second offer.''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
whereas the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection issued a
final rule entitled ``Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and
the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)'' (78 Fed. Reg. 79730
(December 31, 2013)) (in this subsection referred to as the
``TRID Rule'') to combine the disclosures a consumer receives
in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage
loan, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection should
endeavor to provide clearer, authoritative guidance on--
(1) the applicability of the TRID Rule to mortgage
assumption transactions;
(2) the applicability of the TRID Rule to construction-to-
permanent home loans, and the conditions under which those
loans can be properly originated; and
(3) the extent to which lenders can rely on model
disclosures published by the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection without liability if recent changes to regulations
are not reflected in the sample TRID Rule forms published by
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
TITLE II--REGULATORY RELIEF AND PROTECTING CONSUMER ACCESS TO CREDIT
SEC. 201. CAPITAL SIMPLIFICATION FOR QUALIFYING COMMUNITY
BANKS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Community bank leverage ratio.--The term ``Community
Bank Leverage Ratio'' means the ratio of the tangible equity
capital of a qualifying community bank, as reported on the
qualifying community bank's applicable regulatory filing with
the qualifying community bank's appropriate Federal banking
agency, to the average total consolidated assets of the
qualifying community bank, as reported on the qualifying
community bank's applicable regulatory filing with the
qualifying community bank's appropriate Federal banking
agency.
(2) Generally applicable leverage capital requirements;
generally applicable risk-based capital requirements.--The
terms ``generally applicable leverage capital requirements''
and ``generally applicable risk-based capital requirements''
have the meanings given those terms in section 171(a) of the
Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5371(a)).
(3) Qualifying community bank.--
(A) Asset threshold.--The term ``qualifying community
bank'' means a depository institution or depository
institution holding company with total consolidated assets of
less than $10,000,000,000.
(B) Risk profile.--The appropriate Federal banking agencies
may determine that a depository institution or depository
institution holding company (or a class of depository
institutions or depository institution holding companies)
described in subparagraph (A) is not a qualifying community
bank based on the depository institution's or depository
institution holding company's risk profile, which shall be
based on consideration of--
(i) off-balance sheet exposures;
(ii) trading assets and liabilities;
(iii) total notional derivatives exposures; and
(iv) such other factors as the appropriate Federal banking
agencies determine appropriate.
(b) Community Bank Leverage Ratio.--The appropriate Federal
banking agencies shall, through notice and comment rule
making under section 553 of title 5, United States Code--
(1) develop a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of not less
than 8 percent and not more than 10 percent for qualifying
community banks; and
(2) establish procedures for treatment of a qualifying
community bank that has a Community Bank Leverage Ratio that
falls below the percentage developed under paragraph (1)
after exceeding the percentage developed under paragraph (1).
(c) Capital Compliance.--
(1) In general.--Any qualifying community bank that exceeds
the Community Bank Leverage Ratio developed under subsection
(b)(1) shall be considered to have met--
(A) the generally applicable leverage capital requirements
and the generally applicable risk-based capital requirements;
(B) in the case of a qualifying community bank that is a
depository institution, the capital ratio requirements that
are required in order to be considered well capitalized under
section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1831o) and any regulation implementing that section; and
(C) any other capital or leverage requirements to which the
qualifying community bank is subject.
(2) Existing authorities.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall
limit the authority of the appropriate Federal banking
agencies as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Consultation.--The appropriate Federal banking agencies
shall--
(1) consult with the applicable State bank supervisors in
carrying out this section; and
(2) notify the applicable State bank supervisor of any
qualifying community bank that it supervises that exceeds, or
does not exceed after previously exceeding, the Community
Bank Leverage ratio developed under subsection (b)(1).
[[Page S1549]]
SEC. 202. LIMITED EXCEPTION FOR RECIPROCAL DEPOSITS.
(a) In General.--Section 29 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831f) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) Limited Exception for Reciprocal Deposits.--
``(1) In general.--Reciprocal deposits of an agent
institution shall not be considered to be funds obtained,
directly or indirectly, by or through a deposit broker to the
extent that the total amount of such reciprocal deposits does
not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) $5,000,000,000; or
``(B) an amount equal to 20 percent of the total
liabilities of the agent institution.
``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Agent institution.--The term `agent institution'
means an insured depository institution that places a covered
deposit through a deposit placement network at other insured
depository institutions in amounts that are less than or
equal to the standard maximum deposit insurance amount,
specifying the interest rate to be paid for such amounts, if
the insured depository institution--
``(i)(I) when most recently examined under section 10(d)
was found to have a composite condition of outstanding or
good; and
``(II) is well capitalized;
``(ii) has obtained a waiver pursuant to subsection (c); or
``(iii) does not receive an amount of reciprocal deposits
that causes the total amount of reciprocal deposits held by
the agent institution to be greater than the average of the
total amount of reciprocal deposits held by the agent
institution on the last day of each of the 4 calendar
quarters preceding the calendar quarter in which the agent
institution was found not to have a composite condition of
outstanding or good or was determined to be not well
capitalized.
``(B) Covered deposit.--The term `covered deposit' means a
deposit that--
``(i) is submitted for placement through a deposit
placement network by an agent institution; and
``(ii) does not consist of funds that were obtained for the
agent institution, directly or indirectly, by or through a
deposit broker before submission for placement through a
deposit placement network.
``(C) Deposit placement network.--The term `deposit
placement network' means a network in which an insured
depository institution participates, together with other
insured depository institutions, for the processing and
receipt of reciprocal deposits.
``(D) Network member bank.--The term `network member bank'
means an insured depository institution that is a member of a
deposit placement network.
``(E) Reciprocal deposits.--The term `reciprocal deposits'
means deposits received by an agent institution through a
deposit placement network with the same maturity (if any) and
in the same aggregate amount as covered deposits placed by
the agent institution in other network member banks.
``(F) Well capitalized.--The term `well capitalized' has
the meaning given the term in section 38(b)(1).''.
(b) Interest Rate Restriction.--Section 29 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831f) is amended by
striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Restriction on Interest Rate Paid.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the terms `agent institution', `reciprocal deposits',
and `well capitalized' have the meanings given those terms in
subsection (i); and
``(B) the term `covered insured depository institution'
means an insured depository institution that--
``(i) under subsection (c) or (d), accepts funds obtained,
directly or indirectly, by or through a deposit broker; or
``(ii) while acting as an agent institution under
subsection (i), accepts reciprocal deposits while not well
capitalized.
``(2) Prohibition.--A covered insured depository
institution may not pay a rate of interest on funds or
reciprocal deposits described in paragraph (1) that, at the
time that the funds or reciprocal deposits are accepted,
significantly exceeds the limit set forth in paragraph (3).
``(3) Limit on interest rates.--The limit on the rate of
interest referred to in paragraph (2) shall be--
``(A) the rate paid on deposits of similar maturity in the
normal market area of the covered insured depository
institution for deposits accepted in the normal market area
of the covered insured depository institution; or
``(B) the national rate paid on deposits of comparable
maturity, as established by the Corporation, for deposits
accepted outside the normal market area of the covered
insured depository institution.''.
SEC. 203. COMMUNITY BANK RELIEF.
Section 13(h)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
(12 U.S.C. 1851(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by redesignating clauses (i) and
(ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively, and adjusting
the margins accordingly;
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as
clauses (i) through (iv), respectively, and adjusting the
margins accordingly;
(3) in the matter preceding clause (i), as so redesignated,
in the second sentence, by striking ``institution that
functions solely in a trust or fiduciary capacity, if--'' and
inserting the following: ``institution--
``(A) that functions solely in a trust or fiduciary
capacity, if--'';
(4) in clause (iv)(II), as so redesignated, by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) that does not have and is not controlled by a company
that has--
``(i) more than $10,000,000,000 in total consolidated
assets; and
``(ii) total trading assets and trading liabilities, as
reported on the most recent applicable regulatory filing
filed by the institution, that are more than 5 percent of
total consolidated assets.''.
SEC. 204. REMOVING NAMING RESTRICTIONS.
Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12
U.S.C. 1851) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(1)(G)(vi), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, except that the hedge fund or
private equity fund may share the same name or a variation of
the same name as a banking entity that is an investment
adviser to the hedge fund or private equity fund, if--
``(I) such investment adviser is not an insured depository
institution, a company that controls an insured depository
institution, or a company that is treated as a bank holding
company for purposes of section 8 of the International
Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106);
``(II) such investment adviser does not share the same name
or a variation of the same name as an insured depository
institution, any company that controls an insured depository
institution, or any company that is treated as a bank holding
company for purposes of section 8 of the International
Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and
``(III) such name does not contain the word `bank' ''; and
(2) in subsection (h)(5)(C), by inserting before the period
the following: ``, except as permitted under subsection
(d)(1)(G)(vi)''.
SEC. 205. SHORT FORM CALL REPORTS.
Section 7(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1817(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(12) Short form reporting.--
``(A) In general.--The appropriate Federal banking agencies
shall issue regulations that allow for a reduced reporting
requirement for a covered depository institution when the
institution makes the first and third report of condition for
a year, as required under paragraph (3).
``(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `covered
depository institution' means an insured depository
institution that--
``(i) has less than $5,000,000,000 in total consolidated
assets; and
``(ii) satisfies such other criteria as the appropriate
Federal banking agencies determine appropriate.''.
SEC. 206. OPTION FOR FEDERAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS TO OPERATE
AS COVERED SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS.
The Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 5 (12 U.S.C. 1464) the
following:
``SEC. 5A. ELECTION TO OPERATE AS A COVERED SAVINGS
ASSOCIATION.
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `covered
savings association' means a Federal savings association that
makes an election that is approved under subsection (b).
``(b) Election.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with the rules issued
under subsection (f), a Federal savings association with
total consolidated assets equal to or less than
$20,000,000,000, as reported by the association to the
Comptroller as of December 31, 2017, may elect to operate as
a covered savings association by submitting a notice to the
Comptroller of that election.
``(2) Approval.--A Federal savings association shall be
deemed to be approved to operate as a covered savings
association beginning on the date that is 60 days after the
date on which the Comptroller receives the notice submitted
under paragraph (1), unless the Comptroller notifies the
Federal savings association that the Federal savings
association is not eligible.
``(c) Rights and Duties.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, and except as otherwise provided in this
section, a covered savings association shall--
``(1) have the same rights and privileges as a national
bank that has the main office of the national bank situated
in the same location as the home office of the covered
savings association; and
``(2) be subject to the same duties, restrictions,
penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that
would apply to a national bank described in paragraph (1).
``(d) Treatment of Covered Savings Associations.--A covered
savings association shall be treated as a Federal savings
association for the purposes--
``(1) of governance of the covered savings association,
including incorporation, bylaws, boards of directors,
shareholders, and distribution of dividends;
``(2) of consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion
(including conversion to a stock bank or to another charter),
conservatorship, and receivership; and
``(3) determined by regulation of the Comptroller.
``(e) Existing Branches.--A covered savings association may
continue to operate any branch or agency that the covered
savings association operated on the date on which an election
under subsection (b) is approved.
[[Page S1550]]
``(f) Rule Making.--The Comptroller shall issue rules to
carry out this section--
``(1) that establish streamlined standards and procedures
that clearly identify required documentation and timelines
for an election under subsection (b);
``(2) that require a Federal savings association that makes
an election under subsection (b) to identify specific assets
and subsidiaries that--
``(A) do not conform to the requirements for assets and
subsidiaries of a national bank; and
``(B) are held by the Federal savings association on the
date on which the Federal savings association submits a
notice of the election;
``(3) that establish--
``(A) a transition process for bringing the assets and
subsidiaries described in paragraph (2) into conformance with
the requirements for a national bank; and
``(B) procedures for allowing the Federal savings
association to submit to the Comptroller an application to
continue to hold assets and subsidiaries described in
paragraph (2) after electing to operate as a covered savings
association;
``(4) that establish standards and procedures to allow a
covered savings association to--
``(A) terminate an election under subsection (b) after an
appropriate period of time; and
``(B) make a subsequent election under subsection (b) after
terminating an election under subparagraph (A);
``(5) that clarify requirements for the treatment of
covered savings associations, including the provisions of law
that apply to covered savings associations; and
``(6) as the Comptroller determines necessary in the
interests of safety and soundness.
``(g) Grandfathered Covered Savings Associations.--Subject
to the rules issued under subsection (f), a covered savings
association may continue to operate as a covered savings
association if, after the date on which the election is made
under subsection (b), the covered savings association has
total consolidated assets greater than $20,000,000,000.''.
SEC. 207. SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY POLICY STATEMENT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System.
(2) Savings and loan holding company.--The term ``savings
and loan holding company'' has the meaning given the term in
section 10(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C.
1467a(a)).
(b) Changes Required to Small Bank Holding Company Policy
Statement on Assessment of Financial and Managerial
Factors.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Board shall revise appendix C to part 225 of
title 12, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly known as the
``Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding
Company Policy Statement''), to raise the consolidated asset
threshold under that appendix from $1,000,000,000 to
$3,000,000,000 for any bank holding company or savings and
loan holding company that--
(1) is not engaged in significant nonbanking activities
either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary;
(2) does not conduct significant off-balance sheet
activities (including securitization and asset management or
administration) either directly or through a nonbank
subsidiary; and
(3) does not have a material amount of debt or equity
securities outstanding (other than trust preferred
securities) that are registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
(c) Exclusions.--The Board may exclude any bank holding
company or savings and loan holding company, regardless of
asset size, from the revision under subsection (b) if the
Board determines that such action is warranted for
supervisory purposes.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 171(b)(5) of the
Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5371(b)(5)) is
amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) any bank holding company or savings and loan holding
company that is subject to the application of appendix C to
part 225 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly
known as the `Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan
Holding Company Policy Statement').''.
SEC. 208. APPLICATION OF THE EXPEDITED FUNDS AVAILABILITY
ACT.
(a) In General.--The Expedited Funds Availability Act (12
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 602 (12 U.S.C. 4001)--
(A) in paragraph (20), by inserting ``, located in the
United States,'' after ``ATM'';
(B) in paragraph (21), by inserting ``American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,'' after
``Puerto Rico,''; and
(C) in paragraph (23), by inserting ``American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,'' after
``Puerto Rico,''; and
(2) in section 603(d)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 4002(d)(2)(A)), by
inserting ``American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam,'' after ``Puerto Rico,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 209. SMALL PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES.
(a) Small Public Housing Agencies.--Title I of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 38. SMALL PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Housing voucher program.--The term `housing voucher
program' means a program for tenant-based assistance under
section 8.
``(2) Small public housing agency.--The term `small public
housing agency' means a public housing agency--
``(A) for which the sum of the number of public housing
dwelling units administered by the agency and the number of
vouchers under section 8(o) administered by the agency is 550
or fewer; and
``(B) that predominantly operates in a rural area, as
described in section 1026.35(b)(2)(iv)(A) of title 12, Code
of Federal Regulations.
``(3) Troubled small public housing agency.--The term
`troubled small public housing agency' means a small public
housing agency designated by the Secretary as a troubled
small public housing agency under subsection (c)(3).
``(b) Applicability.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, a small public housing agency shall be subject to
the same requirements as a public housing agency.
``(c) Program Inspections and Evaluations.--
``(1) Public housing projects.--
``(A) Frequency of inspections by secretary.--The Secretary
shall carry out an inspection of the physical condition of a
small public housing agency's public housing projects not
more frequently than once every 3 years, unless the agency
has been designated by the Secretary as a troubled small
public housing agency based on deficiencies in the physical
condition of its public housing projects. Nothing contained
in this subparagraph relieves the Secretary from conducting
lead safety inspections or assessments in accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary under section 302 of
the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.
4822).
``(B) Standards.--The Secretary shall apply to small public
housing agencies the same standards for the acceptable
condition of public housing projects that apply to projects
assisted under section 8.
``(2) Housing voucher program.--Except as required by
section 8(o)(8)(F), a small public housing agency
administering assistance under section 8(o) shall make
periodic physical inspections of each assisted dwelling unit
not less frequently than once every 3 years to determine
whether the unit is maintained in accordance with the
requirements under section 8(o)(8)(A). Nothing contained in
this paragraph relieves a small public housing agency from
conducting lead safety inspections or assessments in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary under
section 302 of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act
(42 U.S.C. 4822).
``(3) Troubled small public housing agencies.--
``(A) Public housing program.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may designate a small public
housing agency as a troubled small public housing agency with
respect to the public housing program of the small public
housing agency if the Secretary determines that the agency
has failed to maintain the public housing units of the small
public housing agency in a satisfactory physical condition,
based upon an inspection conducted by the Secretary.
``(B) Housing voucher program.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may designate a small public
housing agency as a troubled small public housing agency with
respect to the housing voucher program of the small public
housing agency if the Secretary determines that the agency
has failed to comply with the inspection requirements under
paragraph (2).
``(C) Appeals.--
``(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
appeals process under which a small public housing agency may
dispute a designation as a troubled small public housing
agency.
``(ii) Official.--The appeals process established under
clause (i) shall provide for a decision by an official who
has not been involved, and is not subordinate to a person who
has been involved, in the original determination to designate
a small public housing agency as a troubled small public
housing agency.
``(D) Corrective action agreement.--
``(i) Agreement required.--Not later than 60 days after the
date on which a small public housing agency is designated as
a troubled public housing agency under subparagraph (A) or
(B), the Secretary and the small public housing agency shall
enter into a corrective action agreement under which the
small public housing agency shall undertake actions to
correct the deficiencies upon which the designation is based.
``(ii) Terms of agreement.--A corrective action agreement
entered into under clause (i) shall--
``(I) have a term of 1 year, and shall be renewable at the
option of the Secretary;
``(II) provide, where feasible, for technical assistance to
assist the public housing agency in curing its deficiencies;
``(III) provide for--
[[Page S1551]]
``(aa) reconsideration of the designation of the small
public housing agency as a troubled small public housing
agency not less frequently than annually; and
``(bb) termination of the agreement when the Secretary
determines that the small public housing agency is no longer
a troubled small public housing agency; and
``(IV) provide that in the event of substantial
noncompliance by the small public housing agency under the
agreement, the Secretary may--
``(aa) contract with another public housing agency or a
private entity to manage the public housing of the troubled
small public housing agency;
``(bb) withhold funds otherwise distributable to the
troubled small public housing agency;
``(cc) assume possession of, and direct responsibility for,
managing the public housing of the troubled small public
housing agency;
``(dd) petition for the appointment of a receiver, in
accordance with section 6(j)(3)(A)(ii); and
``(ee) exercise any other remedy available to the Secretary
in the event of default under the public housing annual
contributions contract entered into by the small public
housing agency under section 5.
``(E) Emergency actions.--Nothing in this paragraph may be
construed to prohibit the Secretary from taking any emergency
action necessary to protect Federal financial resources or
the health or safety of residents of public housing projects.
``(d) Reduction of Administrative Burdens.--
``(1) Exemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a small public housing agency shall be exempt from any
environmental review requirements with respect to a
development or modernization project having a total cost of
not more than $100,000.
``(2) Streamlined procedures.--The Secretary shall, by
rule, establish streamlined procedures for environmental
reviews of small public housing agency development and
modernization projects having a total cost of more than
$100,000.''.
(b) Energy Conservation.--Section 9(e)(2) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(e)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Freeze of consumption levels.--
``(i) In general.--A small public housing agency, as
defined in section 38(a), may elect to be paid for its
utility and waste management costs under the formula for a
period, at the discretion of the small public housing agency,
of not more than 20 years based on the small public housing
agency's average annual consumption during the 3-year period
preceding the year in which the election is made (in this
subparagraph referred to as the `consumption base level').
``(ii) Initial adjustment in consumption base level.--The
Secretary shall make an initial one-time adjustment in the
consumption base level to account for differences in the
heating degree day average over the most recent 20-year
period compared to the average in the consumption base level.
``(iii) Adjustments in consumption base level.--The
Secretary shall make adjustments in the consumption base
level to account for an increase or reduction in units, a
change in fuel source, a change in resident controlled
electricity consumption, or for other reasons.
``(iv) Savings.--All cost savings resulting from an
election made by a small public housing agency under this
subparagraph--
``(I) shall accrue to the small public housing agency; and
``(II) may be used for any public housing purpose at the
discretion of the small public housing agency.
``(v) Third parties.--A small public housing agency making
an election under this subparagraph--
``(I) may use, but shall not be required to use, the
services of a third party in its energy conservation program;
and
``(II) shall have the sole discretion to determine the
source, and terms and conditions, of any financing used for
its energy conservation program.''.
(c) Reporting by Agencies Operating in Consortia.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall develop
and deploy all electronic information systems necessary to
accommodate full consolidated reporting by public housing
agencies, as defined in section 3(b)(6) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)), electing to
operate in consortia under section 13(a) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1437k(a)).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(e) Shared Waiting Lists.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall make available to interested public
housing agencies and owners of multifamily properties
receiving assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development 1 or more software programs that will facilitate
the voluntary use of a shared waiting list by multiple public
housing agencies or owners receiving assistance, and shall
publish on the website of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development procedural guidance for implementing shared
waiting lists that includes information on how to obtain the
software.
SEC. 210. EXAMINATION CYCLE.
Section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1820(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$3,000,000,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$3,000,000,000''.
SEC. 211. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CAPITAL STANDARDS
ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, and Director of the Federal
Insurance Office shall support increasing transparency at any
global insurance or international standard-setting regulatory
or supervisory forum in which they participate, including
supporting and advocating for greater public observer access
to working groups and committee meetings of the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors; and
(2) to the extent that the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the
Director of the Federal Insurance Office take a position or
reasonably intend to take a position with respect to an
insurance proposal by a global insurance regulatory or
supervisory forum, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Director
of the Federal Insurance Office shall achieve consensus
positions with State insurance regulators through the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, when they
are United States participants in negotiations on insurance
issues before the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors, Financial Stability Board, or any other
international forum of financial regulators or supervisors
that considers such issues.
(b) Insurance Policy Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established the Insurance
Policy Advisory Committee on International Capital Standards
and Other Insurance Issues at the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be composed of not
more than 21 members, all of whom represent a diverse set of
expert perspectives from the various sectors of the United
States insurance industry, including life insurance, property
and casualty insurance and reinsurance, agents and brokers,
academics, consumer advocates, or experts on issues facing
underserved insurance communities and consumers.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Reports and testimony by secretary of the treasury and
chairman of the federal reserve.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, or their designee, shall submit to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, and the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives, an annual report and provide annual
testimony to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives on the efforts of
the Secretary and the Chairman with the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners with respect to global insurance
regulatory or supervisory forums, including--
(i) a description of the insurance regulatory or
supervisory standard-setting issues under discussion at
international standard-setting bodies, including the
Financial Stability Board and the International Association
of Insurance Supervisors;
(ii) a description of the effects that proposals discussed
at international insurance regulatory or supervisory forums
of insurance could have on consumer and insurance markets in
the United States;
(iii) a description of any position taken by the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and the Director of the Federal Insurance
Office in international insurance discussions; and
(iv) a description of the efforts by the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and the Director of the Federal Insurance Office to
increase transparency at the Financial Stability Board with
respect to insurance proposals and the International
Association of Insurance Supervisors, including efforts to
provide additional public access to working groups and
committees of the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors.
(B) Termination.--This paragraph shall terminate on
December 31, 2024.
(2) Reports and testimony by national association of
insurance commissioners.--The National Association of
Insurance Commissioners may provide testimony to Congress on
the issues described in paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Joint report by the chairman of the federal reserve and
the director of the federal insurance office.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury, the
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and the Director of the Federal Insurance Office
shall, in consultation with the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners, complete a study on, and submit to
Congress a report on the results of the study, the impact on
consumers and markets in the United States before supporting
or consenting to
[[Page S1552]]
the adoption of any final international insurance capital
standard.
(B) Notice and comment.--
(i) Notice.--The Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the
Director of the Federal Insurance Office shall provide public
notice before the date on which drafting a report required
under subparagraph (A) is commenced and after the date on
which the draft of the report is completed.
(ii) Opportunity for comment.--There shall be an
opportunity for public comment for a period beginning on the
date on which the report is submitted under subparagraph (A)
and ending on the date that is 60 days after the date on
which the report is submitted.
(C) Review by comptroller general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and the Director of the Federal Insurance
Office shall submit to the Comptroller General of the United
States the report described in subparagraph (A) for review.
(4) Report on increase in transparency.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Chairman of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the
Secretary of the Treasury, or their designees, shall submit
to Congress a report and provide testimony to Congress on the
efforts of the Chairman and the Secretary to increase
transparency at meetings of the International Association of
Insurance Supervisors.
SEC. 212. BUDGET TRANSPARENCY FOR THE NCUA.
Section 209(b) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1789(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(1) on an annual basis and prior to the submission of the
detailed business-type budget required under paragraph (2)--
``(A) make publicly available and publish in the Federal
Register a draft of the detailed business-type budget; and
``(B) hold a public hearing, with public notice provided of
the hearing, during which the public may submit comments on
the draft of the detailed business-type budget;''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated--
(A) by inserting ``detailed'' after ``submit a''; and
(B) by inserting ``, which shall address any comment
submitted by the public under paragraph (1)(B)'' after
``Control Act''.
SEC. 213. MAKING ONLINE BANKING INITIATION LEGAL AND EASY.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' has the meaning
given the term in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act
of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841).
(2) Driver's license.--The term ``driver's license'' means
a license issued by a State to an individual that authorizes
the individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets,
roads, or highways.
(3) Federal bank secrecy laws.--The term ``Federal bank
secrecy laws'' means--
(A) section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1829b);
(B) section 123 of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1953); and
(C) subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States
Code.
(4) Financial institution.--The term ``financial
institution'' means--
(A) an insured depository institution;
(B) an insured credit union; or
(C) any affiliate of an insured depository institution or
insured credit union.
(5) Financial product or service.--The term ``financial
product or service'' has the meaning given the term in
section 1002 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
(12 U.S.C. 5481).
(6) Insured credit union.--The term ``insured credit
union'' has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752).
(7) Insured depository institution.--The term ``insured
depository institution'' has the meaning given the term in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813).
(8) Online service.--The term ``online service'' means any
Internet-based service, such as a website or mobile
application.
(9) Personal identification card.--The term ``personal
identification card'' means an identification document issued
by a State or local government to an individual solely for
the purpose of identification of that individual.
(10) Personal information.--The term ``personal
information'' means the information displayed on or
electronically encoded on a driver's license or personal
identification card that is reasonably necessary to fulfill
the purpose and uses permitted by subsection (b).
(11) Scan.--The term ``scan'' means the act of using a
device or software to decipher, in an electronically readable
format, personal information displayed on or electronically
encoded on a driver's license or personal identification
card.
(12) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or
territory of the United States.
(b) Use of a Driver's License or Personal Identification
Card.--
(1) In general.--When an individual initiates a request
through an online service to open an account with a financial
institution or obtain a financial product or service from a
financial institution, the financial institution may record
personal information from a scan of the driver's license or
personal identification card of the individual, or make a
copy or receive an image of the driver's license or personal
identification card of the individual, and store or retain
such information in any electronic format for the purposes
described in paragraph (2).
(2) Uses of information.--Except as required to comply with
Federal bank secrecy laws, a financial institution may only
use the information obtained under paragraph (1)--
(A) to verify the authenticity of the driver's license or
personal identification card;
(B) to verify the identity of the individual; and
(C) to comply with a legal requirement to record, retain,
or transmit the personal information in connection with
opening an account or obtaining a financial product or
service.
(3) Deletion of image.--A financial institution that makes
a copy or receives an image of a driver's license or personal
identification card of an individual in accordance with
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall, after using the image for the
purposes described in paragraph (2), permanently delete--
(A) any image of the driver's license or personal
identification card, as applicable; and
(B) any copy of any such image.
(4) Disclosure of personal information.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to amend, modify, or otherwise
affect any State or Federal law that governs a financial
institution's disclosure and security of personal information
that is not publicly available.
(c) Relation to State Law.--The provisions of this section
shall preempt and supersede any State law that conflicts with
a provision of this section, but only to the extent of such
conflict.
SEC. 214. PROMOTING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ON MAIN
STREET.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 51. CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ACQUISITION,
DEVELOPMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION LOANS.
``(a) In General.--The appropriate Federal banking agencies
may only require a depository institution to assign a
heightened risk weight to a high volatility commercial real
estate (HVCRE) exposure (as such term is defined under
section 324.2 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, as of
October 11, 2017, or if a successor regulation is in effect
as of the date of the enactment of this section, such term or
any successor term contained in such successor regulation)
under any risk-based capital requirement if such exposure is
an HVCRE ADC loan.
``(b) HVCRE ADC Loan Defined.--For purposes of this section
and with respect to a depository institution, the term `HVCRE
ADC loan'--
``(1) means a credit facility secured by land or improved
real property that, prior to being reclassified by the
depository institution as a non-HVCRE ADC loan pursuant to
subsection (d)--
``(A) primarily finances, has financed, or refinances the
acquisition, development, or construction of real property;
``(B) has the purpose of providing financing to acquire,
develop, or improve such real property into income-producing
real property; and
``(C) is dependent upon future income or sales proceeds
from, or refinancing of, such real property for the repayment
of such credit facility;
``(2) does not include a credit facility financing--
``(A) the acquisition, development, or construction of
properties that are--
``(i) one- to four-family residential properties;
``(ii) real property that would qualify as an investment in
community development; or
``(iii) agricultural land;
``(B) the acquisition or refinance of existing income-
producing real property secured by a mortgage on such
property, if the cash flow being generated by the real
property is sufficient to support the debt service and
expenses of the real property, in accordance with the
institution's applicable loan underwriting criteria for
permanent financings;
``(C) improvements to existing income-producing improved
real property secured by a mortgage on such property, if the
cash flow being generated by the real property is sufficient
to support the debt service and expenses of the real
property, in accordance with the institution's applicable
loan underwriting criteria for permanent financings; or
``(D) commercial real property projects in which--
``(i) the loan-to-value ratio is less than or equal to the
applicable maximum supervisory loan-to-value ratio as
determined by the appropriate Federal banking agency;
``(ii) the borrower has contributed capital of at least 15
percent of the real property's appraised, `as completed'
value to the project in the form of--
``(I) cash;
``(II) unencumbered readily marketable assets;
``(III) paid development expenses out-of-pocket; or
[[Page S1553]]
``(IV) contributed real property or improvements; and
``(iii) the borrower contributed the minimum amount of
capital described under clause (ii) before the depository
institution advances funds (other than the advance of a
nominal sum made in order to secure the depository
institution's lien against the real property) under the
credit facility, and such minimum amount of capital
contributed by the borrower is contractually required to
remain in the project until the credit facility has been
reclassified by the depository institution as a non-HVCRE ADC
loan under subsection (d);
``(3) does not include any loan made prior to January 1,
2015; and
``(4) does not include a credit facility reclassified as a
non-HVCRE ADC loan under subsection (d).
``(c) Value of Contributed Real Property.--For purposes of
this section, the value of any real property contributed by a
borrower as a capital contribution shall be the appraised
value of the property as determined under standards
prescribed pursuant to section 1110 of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
(12 U.S.C. 3339), in connection with the extension of the
credit facility or loan to such borrower.
``(d) Reclassification as a Non-HVRCE ADC Loan.--For
purposes of this section and with respect to a credit
facility and a depository institution, upon--
``(1) the substantial completion of the development or
construction of the real property being financed by the
credit facility; and
``(2) cash flow being generated by the real property being
sufficient to support the debt service and expenses of the
real property,
in accordance with the institution's applicable loan
underwriting criteria for permanent financings, the credit
facility may be reclassified by the depository institution as
a Non-HVCRE ADC loan.
``(e) Existing Authorities.--Nothing in this section shall
limit the supervisory, regulatory, or enforcement authority
of an appropriate Federal banking agency to further the safe
and sound operation of an institution under the supervision
of the appropriate Federal banking agency.''.
SEC. 215. REDUCING IDENTITY FRAUD.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to reduce the
prevalence of synthetic identity fraud, which
disproportionally affects vulnerable populations, such as
minors and recent immigrants, by facilitating the validation
by permitted entities of fraud protection data, pursuant to
electronically received consumer consent, through use of a
database maintained by the Commissioner.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
(2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial
institution'' has the meaning given the term in section 509
of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809).
(3) Fraud protection data.--The term ``fraud protection
data'' means a combination of the following information with
respect to an individual:
(A) The name of the individual (including the first name
and any family forename or surname of the individual).
(B) The social security number of the individual.
(C) The date of birth (including the month, day, and year)
of the individual.
(4) Permitted entity.--The term ``permitted entity'' means
a financial institution or a service provider, subsidiary,
affiliate, agent, subcontractor, or assignee of a financial
institution.
(c) Efficiency.--
(1) Reliance on existing methods.--The Commissioner shall
evaluate the feasibility of making modifications to any
database that is in existence as of the date of enactment of
this Act or a similar resource such that the database or
resource--
(A) is reasonably designed to effectuate the purpose of
this section; and
(B) meets the requirements of subsection (d).
(2) Execution.--The Commissioner shall make the
modifications necessary to any database that is in existence
as of the date of enactment of this Act or similar resource,
or develop a database or similar resource, to effectuate the
requirements described in paragraph (1).
(d) Protection of Vulnerable Consumers.--The database or
similar resource described in subsection (c) shall--
(1) compare fraud protection data provided in an inquiry by
a permitted entity against such information maintained by the
Commissioner in order to confirm (or not confirm) the
validity of the information provided;
(2) be scalable and accommodate reasonably anticipated
volumes of verification requests from permitted entities with
commercially reasonable uptime and availability; and
(3) allow permitted entities to submit--
(A) 1 or more individual requests electronically for real-
time machine-to-machine (or similar functionality) accurate
responses; and
(B) multiple requests electronically, such as those
provided in a batch format, for accurate electronic responses
within a reasonable period of time from submission, not to
exceed 24 hours.
(e) Certification Required.--Before providing confirmation
of fraud protection data to a permitted entity, the
Commissioner shall ensure that the Commissioner has a
certification from the permitted entity that is dated not
more than 2 years before the date on which that confirmation
is provided that includes the following declarations:
(1) The entity is a permitted entity.
(2) The entity is in compliance with this section.
(3) The entity is, and will remain, in compliance with its
privacy and data security requirements, as described in title
V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.),
with respect to information the entity receives from the
Commissioner pursuant to this section.
(4) The entity will retain sufficient records to
demonstrate its compliance with its certification and this
section for a period of not less than 2 years.
(f) Consumer Consent.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or regulation, a permitted entity may submit a request to the
database or similar resource described in subsection (c)
only--
(A) pursuant to the written, including electronic, consent
received by a permitted entity from the individual who is the
subject of the request; and
(B) in connection with a credit transaction or any
circumstance described in section 604 of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b).
(2) Electronic consent requirements.--For a permitted
entity to use the consent of an individual received
electronically pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), the permitted
entity must obtain the individual's electronic signature, as
defined in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).
(3) Effectuating electronic consent.--No provision of law
or requirement, including section 552a of title 5, United
States Code, shall prevent the use of electronic consent for
purposes of this subsection or for use in any other consent
based verification under the discretion of the Commissioner.
(g) Compliance and Enforcement.--
(1) Audits and monitoring.--The Commissioner may--
(A) conduct audits and monitoring to--
(i) ensure proper use by permitted entities of the database
or similar resource described in subsection (c); and
(ii) deter fraud and misuse by permitted entities with
respect to the database or similar resource described in
subsection (c); and
(B) terminate services for any permitted entity that
prevents or refuses to allow the Commissioner to carry out
the activities described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Enforcement.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, including the matter preceding paragraph (1) of section
505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6805(a)), any
violation of this section and any certification made under
this section shall be enforced in accordance with paragraphs
(1) through (7) of such section 505(a) by the agencies
described in those paragraphs.
(B) Relevant information.--Upon discovery by the
Commissioner, pursuant to an audit described in paragraph
(1), of any violation of this section or any certification
made under this section, the Commissioner shall forward any
relevant information pertaining to that violation to the
appropriate agency described in subparagraph (A) for
evaluation by the agency for purposes of enforcing this
section.
(h) Recovery of Costs.--
(1) In general.--
(A) In general.--Amounts obligated to carry out this
section shall be fully recovered from the users of the
database or verification system by way of advances,
reimbursements, user fees, or other recoveries as determined
by the Commissioner. The funds recovered under this paragraph
shall be deposited as an offsetting collection to the account
providing appropriations for the Social Security
Administration, to be used for the administration of this
section without fiscal year limitation.
(B) Prices fixed by commissioner.--The Commissioner shall
establish the amount to be paid by the users under this
paragraph, including the costs of any services or work
performed, such as any appropriate upgrades, maintenance, and
associated direct and indirect administrative costs, in
support of carrying out the purposes described in this
section, by reimbursement or in advance as determined by the
Commissioner. The amount of such prices shall be periodically
adjusted by the Commissioner to ensure that amounts collected
are sufficient to fully offset the cost of the administration
of this section.
(2) Initial development.--The Commissioner shall not begin
development of a verification system to carry out this
section until the Commissioner determines that amounts equal
to at least 50 percent of program start-up costs have been
collected under paragraph (1).
(3) Existing resources.--The Commissioner may use funds
designated for information technology modernization to carry
out this section.
(4) Annual report.--The Commissioner shall annually submit
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report on the amount of indirect costs to the Social Security
Administration arising as a result of the implementation of
this section.
[[Page S1554]]
SEC. 216. TREASURY REPORT ON RISKS OF CYBER THREATS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives a report on the risks of cyber threats to
financial institutions and capital markets in the United
States, including--
(1) an assessment of the material risks of cyber threats to
financial institutions and capital markets in the United
States;
(2) the impact and potential effects of material cyber
attacks on financial institutions and capital markets in the
United States;
(3) an analysis of how the appropriate Federal banking
agencies and the Securities and Exchange Commission are
addressing the material risks of cyber threats described in
paragraph (1), including--
(A) how the appropriate Federal banking agencies and the
Securities and Exchange Commission are assessing those
threats;
(B) how the appropriate Federal banking agencies and the
Securities and Exchange Commission are assessing the cyber
vulnerabilities and preparedness of financial institutions;
(C) coordination amongst the appropriate Federal banking
agencies and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
their coordination with other government agencies (including
with respect to regulations, examinations, lexicon,
duplication, and other regulatory tools); and
(D) areas for improvement; and
(4) a recommendation of whether any appropriate Federal
banking agency or the Securities and Exchange Commission
needs additional legal authorities or resources to adequately
assess and address the material risks of cyber threats
described in paragraph (1), given the analysis required by
paragraph (3).
SEC. 217. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUNDS.
Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C.
289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$7,500,000,000'' and
inserting ``$6,825,000,000''.
TITLE III--PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, CONSUMERS, AND HOMEOWNERS
SEC. 301. PROTECTING CONSUMERS' CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 605A of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``90 days'' and
inserting ``1 year''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) National Security Freeze.--
``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) The term `consumer reporting agency' means a consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p).
``(B) The term `proper identification' has the meaning of
such term as used under section 610.
``(C) The term `security freeze' means a restriction that
prohibits a consumer reporting agency from disclosing the
contents of a consumer report that is subject to such
security freeze to any person requesting the consumer report.
``(2) Placement of security freeze.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receiving a direct request from a
consumer that a consumer reporting agency place a security
freeze, and upon receiving proper identification from the
consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall, free of
charge, place the security freeze not later than--
``(i) in the case of a request that is by toll-free
telephone or secure electronic means, 1 business day after
receiving the request directly from the consumer; or
``(ii) in the case of a request that is by mail, 3 business
days after receiving the request directly from the consumer.
``(B) Confirmation and additional information.--Not later
than 5 business days after placing a security freeze under
subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall--
``(i) send confirmation of the placement to the consumer;
and
``(ii) inform the consumer of--
``(I) the process by which the consumer may remove the
security freeze, including a mechanism to authenticate the
consumer; and
``(II) the consumer's right described in section
615(d)(1)(D).
``(C) Notice to third parties.--A consumer reporting agency
may advise a third party that a security freeze has been
placed with respect to a consumer under subparagraph (A).
``(3) Removal of security freeze.--
``(A) In general.--A consumer reporting agency shall remove
a security freeze placed on the consumer report of a consumer
only in the following cases:
``(i) Upon the direct request of the consumer.
``(ii) The security freeze was placed due to a material
misrepresentation of fact by the consumer.
``(B) Notice if removal not by request.--If a consumer
reporting agency removes a security freeze under subparagraph
(A)(ii), the consumer reporting agency shall notify the
consumer in writing prior to removing the security freeze.
``(C) Removal of security freeze by consumer request.--
Except as provided in subparagraph (A)(ii), a security freeze
shall remain in place until the consumer directly requests
that the security freeze be removed. Upon receiving a direct
request from a consumer that a consumer reporting agency
remove a security freeze, and upon receiving proper
identification from the consumer, the consumer reporting
agency shall, free of charge, remove the security freeze not
later than--
``(i) in the case of a request that is by toll-free
telephone or secure electronic means, 1 hour after receiving
the request for removal; or
``(ii) in the case of a request that is by mail, 3 business
days after receiving the request for removal.
``(D) Third-party requests.--If a third party requests
access to a consumer report of a consumer with respect to
which a security freeze is in effect, where such request is
in connection with an application for credit, and the
consumer does not allow such consumer report to be accessed,
the third party may treat the application as incomplete.
``(E) Temporary removal of security freeze.--Upon receiving
a direct request from a consumer under subparagraph (A)(i),
if the consumer requests a temporary removal of a security
freeze, the consumer reporting agency shall, in accordance
with subparagraph (C), remove the security freeze for the
period of time specified by the consumer.
``(4) Exceptions.--A security freeze shall not apply to the
making of a consumer report for use of the following:
``(A) A person or entity, or a subsidiary, affiliate, or
agent of that person or entity, or an assignee of a financial
obligation owed by the consumer to that person or entity, or
a prospective assignee of a financial obligation owed by the
consumer to that person or entity in conjunction with the
proposed purchase of the financial obligation, with which the
consumer has or had prior to assignment an account or
contract including a demand deposit account, or to whom the
consumer issued a negotiable instrument, for the purposes of
reviewing the account or collecting the financial obligation
owed for the account, contract, or negotiable instrument. For
purposes of this subparagraph, `reviewing the account'
includes activities related to account maintenance,
monitoring, credit line increases, and account upgrades and
enhancements.
``(B) Any Federal, State, or local agency, law enforcement
agency, trial court, or private collection agency acting
pursuant to a court order, warrant, or subpoena.
``(C) A child support agency acting pursuant to part D of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
``(D) A Federal agency or a State or its agents or assigns
acting to investigate fraud or acting to investigate or
collect delinquent taxes or unpaid court orders or to fulfill
any of its other statutory responsibilities, provided such
responsibilities are consistent with a permissible purpose
under section 604.
``(E) By a person using credit information for the purposes
described under section 604(c).
``(F) Any person or entity administering a credit file
monitoring subscription or similar service to which the
consumer has subscribed.
``(G) Any person or entity for the purpose of providing a
consumer with a copy of the consumer's consumer report or
credit score, upon the request of the consumer.
``(H) Any person using the information in connection with
the underwriting of insurance.
``(I) Any person using the information for employment,
tenant, or background screening purposes.
``(J) Any person using the information for assessing,
verifying, or authenticating a consumer's identity for
purposes other than the granting of credit, or for
investigating or preventing actual or potential fraud.
``(5) Notice of rights.--At any time a consumer is required
to receive a summary of rights required under section 609,
the following notice shall be included:
`` `Consumers Have the Right To Obtain a Security Freeze
`` `You have a right to place a ``security freeze'' on your
credit report, which will prohibit a consumer reporting
agency from releasing information in your credit report
without your express authorization. The security freeze is
designed to prevent credit, loans, and services from being
approved in your name without your consent. However, you
should be aware that using a security freeze to take control
over who gets access to the personal and financial
information in your credit report may delay, interfere with,
or prohibit the timely approval of any subsequent request or
application you make regarding a new loan, credit, mortgage,
or any other account involving the extension of credit.
`` `As an alternative to a security freeze, you have the
right to place an initial or extended fraud alert on your
credit file at no cost. An initial fraud alert is a 1-year
alert that is placed on a consumer's credit file. Upon seeing
a fraud alert display on a consumer's credit file, a business
is required to take steps to verify the consumer's identity
before extending new credit. If you are a victim of identity
theft, you are entitled to an extended fraud alert, which is
a fraud alert lasting 7 years.
`` `A security freeze does not apply to a person or entity,
or its affiliates, or collection agencies acting on behalf of
the person or entity, with which you have an existing account
that requests information in your credit report for the
purposes of reviewing or collecting the account. Reviewing
the account includes activities related to account
[[Page S1555]]
maintenance, monitoring, credit line increases, and account
upgrades and enhancements.'.
``(6) Webpage.--
``(A) Consumer reporting agencies.--A consumer reporting
agency shall establish a webpage that--
``(i) allows a consumer to request a security freeze;
``(ii) allows a consumer to request an initial fraud alert;
``(iii) allows a consumer to request an extended fraud
alert;
``(iv) allows a consumer to request an active duty fraud
alert;
``(v) allows a consumer to opt-out of the use of
information in a consumer report to send the consumer a
solicitation of credit or insurance, in accordance with
section 615(d); and
``(vi) shall not be the only mechanism by which a consumer
may request a security freeze.
``(B) FTC.--The Federal Trade Commission shall establish a
single webpage that includes a link to each webpage
established under subparagraph (A) within the Federal Trade
Commission's website www.Identitytheft.gov, or a successor
website.
``(j) National Protection for Files and Credit Records of
Protected Consumers.--
``(1) Definitions.--As used in this subsection:
``(A) The term `consumer reporting agency' means a consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p).
``(B) The term `protected consumer' means an individual who
is--
``(i) under the age of 16 years at the time a request for
the placement of a security freeze is made; or
``(ii) an incapacitated person or a protected person for
whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed.
``(C) The term `protected consumer's representative' means
a person who provides to a consumer reporting agency
sufficient proof of authority to act on behalf of a protected
consumer.
``(D) The term `record' means a compilation of information
that--
``(i) identifies a protected consumer;
``(ii) is created by a consumer reporting agency solely for
the purpose of complying with this subsection; and
``(iii) may not be created or used to consider the
protected consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing,
credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal
characteristics, or mode of living.
``(E) The term `security freeze' means a restriction that
prohibits a consumer reporting agency from disclosing the
contents of a consumer report that is the subject of such
security freeze or, in the case of a protected consumer for
whom the consumer reporting agency does not have a file, a
record that is subject to such security freeze to any person
requesting the consumer report for the purpose of opening a
new account involving the extension of credit.
``(F) The term `sufficient proof of authority' means
documentation that shows a protected consumer's
representative has authority to act on behalf of a protected
consumer and includes--
``(i) an order issued by a court of law;
``(ii) a lawfully executed and valid power of attorney;
``(iii) a document issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency in the United States showing proof of
parentage, including a birth certificate; or
``(iv) with respect to a protected consumer who has been
placed in a foster care setting, a written communication from
a county welfare department or its agent or designee, or a
county probation department or its agent or designee,
certifying that the protected consumer is in a foster care
setting under its jurisdiction.
``(G) The term `sufficient proof of identification' means
information or documentation that identifies a protected
consumer and a protected consumer's representative and
includes--
``(i) a social security number or a copy of a social
security card issued by the Social Security Administration;
``(ii) a certified or official copy of a birth certificate
issued by the entity authorized to issue the birth
certificate; or
``(iii) a copy of a driver's license, an identification
card issued by the motor vehicle administration, or any other
government issued identification.
``(2) Placement of security freeze for a protected
consumer.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receiving a direct request from a
protected consumer's representative that a consumer reporting
agency place a security freeze, and upon receiving sufficient
proof of identification and sufficient proof of authority,
the consumer reporting agency shall, free of charge, place
the security freeze not later than--
``(i) in the case of a request that is by toll-free
telephone or secure electronic means, 1 business day after
receiving the request directly from the protected consumer's
representative; or
``(ii) in the case of a request that is by mail, 3 business
days after receiving the request directly from the protected
consumer's representative.
``(B) Confirmation and additional information.--Not later
than 5 business days after placing a security freeze under
subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall--
``(i) send confirmation of the placement to the protected
consumer's representative; and
``(ii) inform the protected consumer's representative of
the process by which the protected consumer may remove the
security freeze, including a mechanism to authenticate the
protected consumer's representative.
``(C) Creation of file.--If a consumer reporting agency
does not have a file pertaining to a protected consumer when
the consumer reporting agency receives a direct request under
subparagraph (A), the consumer reporting agency shall create
a record for the protected consumer.
``(3) Prohibition on release of record or file of protected
consumer.--After a security freeze has been placed under
paragraph (2)(A), and unless the security freeze is removed
in accordance with this subsection, a consumer reporting
agency may not release the protected consumer's consumer
report, any information derived from the protected consumer's
consumer report, or any record created for the protected
consumer.
``(4) Removal of a protected consumer security freeze.--
``(A) In general.--A consumer reporting agency shall remove
a security freeze placed on the consumer report of a
protected consumer only in the following cases:
``(i) Upon the direct request of the protected consumer's
representative.
``(ii) Upon the direct request of the protected consumer,
if the protected consumer is not under the age of 16 years at
the time of the request.
``(iii) The security freeze was placed due to a material
misrepresentation of fact by the protected consumer's
representative.
``(B) Notice if removal not by request.--If a consumer
reporting agency removes a security freeze under subparagraph
(A)(iii), the consumer reporting agency shall notify the
protected consumer's representative in writing prior to
removing the security freeze.
``(C) Removal of freeze by request.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (A)(iii), a security freeze shall remain in
place until a protected consumer's representative or
protected consumer described in subparagraph (A)(ii) directly
requests that the security freeze be removed. Upon receiving
a direct request from the protected consumer's representative
or protected consumer described in subparagraph (A)(ii) that
a consumer reporting agency remove a security freeze, and
upon receiving sufficient proof of identification and
sufficient proof of authority, the consumer reporting agency
shall, free of charge, remove the security freeze not later
than--
``(i) in the case of a request that is by toll-free
telephone or secure electronic means, 1 hour after receiving
the request for removal; or
``(ii) in the case of a request that is by mail, 3 business
days after receiving the request for removal.
``(D) Temporary removal of security freeze.--Upon receiving
a direct request from a protected consumer or a protected
consumer's representative under subparagraph (A)(i), if the
protected consumer or protected consumer's representative
requests a temporary removal of a security freeze, the
consumer reporting agency shall, in accordance with
subparagraph (C), remove the security freeze for the period
of time specified by the protected consumer or protected
consumer's representative.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 625(b)(1) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(J) subsections (i) and (j) of section 605A relating to
security freezes; or''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. PROTECTING VETERANS' CREDIT.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to rectify problematic reporting of medical debt
included in a consumer report of a veteran due to
inappropriate or delayed payment for hospital care, medical
services, or extended care services provided in a non-
Department of Veterans Affairs facility under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
(2) to clarify the process of debt collection for such
medical debt.
(b) Amendments to Fair Credit Reporting Act.--
(1) Veteran's medical debt defined.--Section 603 of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(z) Veteran.--The term `veteran' has the meaning given
the term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
``(aa) Veteran's Medical Debt.--The term `veteran's medical
debt'--
``(1) means a medical collection debt of a veteran owed to
a non-Department of Veterans Affairs health care provider
that was submitted to the Department for payment for health
care authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
``(2) includes medical collection debt that the Department
of Veterans Affairs has wrongfully charged a veteran.''.
(2) Exclusion for veteran's medical debt.--Section 605(a)
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) With respect to a consumer reporting agency described
in section 603(p), any information related to a veteran's
medical debt if
[[Page S1556]]
the date on which the hospital care, medical services, or
extended care services was rendered relating to the debt
antedates the report by less than 1 year if the consumer
reporting agency has actual knowledge that the information is
related to a veteran's medical debt and the consumer
reporting agency is in compliance with its obligation under
section 302(c)(5) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief,
and Consumer Protection Act.
``(8) With respect to a consumer reporting agency described
in section 603(p), any information related to a fully paid or
settled veteran's medical debt that had been characterized as
delinquent, charged off, or in collection if the consumer
reporting agency has actual knowledge that the information is
related to a veteran's medical debt and the consumer
reporting agency is in compliance with its obligation under
section 302(c)(5) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief,
and Consumer Protection Act.''.
(3) Removal of veteran's medical debt from consumer
report.--Section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15
U.S.C. 1681i) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting ``and except as
provided in subsection (g)'' after ``subsection (f)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Dispute Process for Veteran's Medical Debt.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to a veteran's medical
debt, the veteran may submit a notice described in paragraph
(2), proof of liability of the Department of Veterans Affairs
for payment of that debt, or documentation that the
Department of Veterans Affairs is in the process of making
payment for authorized hospital care, medical services, or
extended care services rendered to a consumer reporting
agency or a reseller to dispute the inclusion of that debt on
a consumer report of the veteran.
``(2) Notification to veteran.--The Department of Veterans
Affairs shall submit to a veteran a notice that the
Department of Veterans Affairs has assumed liability for part
or all of a veteran's medical debt.
``(3) Deletion of information from file.--If a consumer
reporting agency receives notice, proof of liability, or
documentation under paragraph (1), the consumer reporting
agency shall delete all information relating to the veteran's
medical debt from the file of the veteran and notify the
furnisher and the veteran of that deletion.''.
(c) Verification of Veteran's Medical Debt.--
(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``consumer reporting agency'' means a consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(p)); and
(B) the terms ``veteran'' and ``veteran's medical debt''
have the meanings given those terms in section 603 of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a), as added by
subsection (b)(1).
(2) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall establish a database to allow consumer reporting
agencies to verify whether a debt furnished to a consumer
reporting agency is a veteran's medical debt.
(3) Database features.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall ensure that the database established under paragraph
(2), to the extent permitted by law, provides consumer
reporting agencies with--
(A) sufficiently detailed and specific information to
verify whether a debt being furnished to the consumer
reporting agency is a veteran's medical debt;
(B) access to verification information in a secure
electronic format;
(C) timely access to verification information; and
(D) any other features that would promote the efficient,
timely, and secure delivery of information that consumer
reporting agencies could use to verify whether a debt is a
veteran's medical debt.
(4) Stakeholder input.--Prior to establishing the database
for verification under paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall publish in the Federal Register a
notice and request for comment that solicits input from
consumer reporting agencies and other stakeholders.
(5) Verification.--Provided the database established under
paragraph (2) is fully functional and the data available to
consumer reporting agencies, a consumer reporting agency
shall use the database as a means to identify a veteran's
medical debt pursuant to paragraphs (7) and (8) of section
605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)),
as added by subsection (b)(2).
(d) Credit Monitoring.--
(1) In general.--Section 605A of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c-1), as amended by section 301(a), is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Credit Monitoring.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) The term `active duty military consumer' includes a
member of the National Guard.
``(B) The term `National Guard' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(c) of title 10, United States Code.
``(2) Credit monitoring.--A consumer reporting agency
described in section 603(p) shall provide a free electronic
credit monitoring service that, at a minimum, notifies a
consumer of material additions or modifications to the file
of the consumer at the consumer reporting agency to any
consumer who provides to the consumer reporting agency--
``(A) appropriate proof that the consumer is an active duty
military consumer; and
``(B) contact information of the consumer.
``(3) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Federal Trade Commission
shall promulgate regulations regarding the requirements of
this subsection, which shall at a minimum include--
``(A) a definition of an electronic credit monitoring
service and material additions or modifications to the file
of a consumer; and
``(B) what constitutes appropriate proof.
``(4) Applicability.--
``(A) Sections 616 and 617 shall not apply to any violation
of this subsection.
``(B) This subsection shall be enforced exclusively under
section 621 by the Federal agencies and Federal and State
officials identified in that section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 625(b)(1) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)), as amended by
section 301(b), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(K) subsection (k) of section 605A, relating to credit
monitoring for active duty military consumers, as defined in
that subsection;''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 303. IMMUNITY FROM SUIT FOR DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL
EXPLOITATION OF SENIOR CITIZENS.
(a) Immunity.--
(1) Definitions.--In this section--
(A) the term ``Bank Secrecy Act officer'' means an
individual responsible for ensuring compliance with the
requirements mandated by subchapter II of chapter 53 of title
31, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Bank Secrecy
Act'');
(B) the term ``broker-dealer'' means a broker and a dealer,
as those terms are defined in section 3(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a));
(C) the term ``covered agency'' means--
(i) a State financial regulatory agency, including a State
securities or law enforcement authority and a State insurance
regulator;
(ii) each of the Federal agencies represented in the
membership of the Financial Institutions Examination Council
established under section 1004 of the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C.
3303);
(iii) a securities association registered under section 15A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3);
(iv) the Securities and Exchange Commission;
(v) a law enforcement agency; or
(vi) a State or local agency responsible for administering
adult protective service laws;
(D) the term ``covered financial institution'' means--
(i) a credit union;
(ii) a depository institution;
(iii) an investment adviser;
(iv) a broker-dealer;
(v) an insurance company;
(vi) an insurance agency; or
(vii) a transfer agent;
(E) the term ``credit union'' has the meaning given the
term in section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301);
(F) the term ``depository institution'' has the meaning
given the term in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c));
(G) the term ``exploitation'' means the fraudulent or
otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper act or process
of an individual, including a caregiver or a fiduciary,
that--
(i) uses the resources of a senior citizen for monetary or
personal benefit, profit, or gain; or
(ii) results in depriving a senior citizen of rightful
access to or use of benefits, resources, belongings, or
assets;
(H) the term ``insurance agency'' means any business entity
that sells, solicits, or negotiates insurance coverage;
(I) the term ``insurance company'' has the meaning given
the term in section 2(a) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a));
(J) the term ``insurance producer'' means an individual who
is required under State law to be licensed in order to sell,
solicit, or negotiate insurance coverage;
(K) the term ``investment adviser'' has the meaning given
the term in section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a));
(L) the term ``investment adviser representative'' means an
individual who--
(i) is employed by, or associated with, an investment
adviser; and
(ii) does not perform solely clerical or ministerial acts;
(M) the term ``registered representative'' means an
individual who represents a broker-dealer in effecting or
attempting to effect a purchase or sale of securities;
(N) the term ``senior citizen'' means an individual who is
not younger than 65 years of age;
(O) the term ``State'' means each of the several States,
the District of Columbia, and any territory or possession of
the United States;
(P) the term ``State insurance regulator'' has the meaning
given the term in section
[[Page S1557]]
315 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6735);
(Q) the term ``State securities or law enforcement
authority'' has the meaning given the term in section
24(f)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78x(f)(4)); and
(R) the term ``transfer agent'' has the meaning given the
term in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78c(a)).
(2) Immunity from suit.--
(A) Immunity for individuals.--An individual who has
received the training described in subsection (b) shall not
be liable, including in any civil or administrative
proceeding, for disclosing the suspected exploitation of a
senior citizen to a covered agency if the individual, at the
time of the disclosure--
(i) served as a supervisor or in a compliance or legal
function (including as a Bank Secrecy Act officer) for, or,
in the case of a registered representative, investment
adviser representative, or insurance producer, was affiliated
or associated with, a covered financial institution; and
(ii) made the disclosure--
(I) in good faith; and
(II) with reasonable care.
(B) Immunity for covered financial institutions.--A covered
financial institution shall not be liable, including in any
civil or administrative proceeding, for a disclosure made by
an individual described in subparagraph (A) if--
(i) the individual was employed by, or, in the case of a
registered representative, insurance producer, or investment
adviser representative, affiliated or associated with, the
covered financial institution at the time of the disclosure;
and
(ii) before the time of the disclosure, each individual
described in subsection (b)(1) received the training
described in subsection (b).
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) or
(B) shall be construed to limit the liability of an
individual or a covered financial institution in a civil
action for any act, omission, or fraud that is not a
disclosure described in subparagraph (A).
(b) Training.--
(1) In general.--A covered financial institution or a third
party selected by a covered financial institution may provide
the training described in paragraph (2)(A) to each officer or
employee of, or registered representative, insurance
producer, or investment adviser representative affiliated or
associated with, the covered financial institution who--
(A) is described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(i);
(B) may come into contact with a senior citizen as a
regular part of the professional duties of the individual; or
(C) may review or approve the financial documents, records,
or transactions of a senior citizen in connection with
providing financial services to a senior citizen.
(2) Content.--
(A) In general.--The content of the training that a covered
financial institution or a third party selected by the
covered financial institution may provide under paragraph (1)
shall--
(i) be maintained by the covered financial institution and
made available to a covered agency with examination authority
over the covered financial institution, upon request, except
that a covered financial institution shall not be required to
maintain or make available such content with respect to any
individual who is no longer employed by, or affiliated or
associated with, the covered financial institution;
(ii) instruct any individual attending the training on how
to identify and report the suspected exploitation of a senior
citizen internally and, as appropriate, to government
officials or law enforcement authorities, including common
signs that indicate the financial exploitation of a senior
citizen;
(iii) discuss the need to protect the privacy and respect
the integrity of each individual customer of the covered
financial institution; and
(iv) be appropriate to the job responsibilities of the
individual attending the training.
(B) Timing.--The training under paragraph (1) shall be
provided--
(i) as soon as reasonably practicable; and
(ii) with respect to an individual who begins employment,
or becomes affiliated or associated, with a covered financial
institution after the date of enactment of this Act, not
later than 1 year after the date on which the individual
becomes employed by, or affiliated or associated with, the
covered financial institution in a position described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1).
(C) Records.--A covered financial institution shall--
(i) maintain a record of each individual who--
(I) is employed by, or affiliated or associated with, the
covered financial institution in a position described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1); and
(II) has completed the training under paragraph (1),
regardless of whether the training was--
(aa) provided by the covered financial institution or a
third party selected by the covered financial institution;
(bb) completed before the individual was employed by, or
affiliated or associated with, the covered financial
institution; and
(cc) completed before, on, or after the date of enactment
of this Act; and
(ii) upon request, provide a record described in clause (i)
to a covered agency with examination authority over the
covered financial institution.
(c) Relationship to State Law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to preempt or limit any provision of State
law, except only to the extent that subsection (a) provides a
greater level of protection against liability to an
individual described in subsection (a)(2)(A) or to a covered
financial institution described in subsection (a)(2)(B) than
is provided under State law.
SEC. 304. RESTORATION OF THE PROTECTING TENANTS AT
FORECLOSURE ACT OF 2009.
(a) Repeal of Sunset Provision.--Section 704 of the
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (12 U.S.C. 5201
note; 12 U.S.C. 5220 note; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is repealed.
(b) Restoration.--Sections 701 through 703 of the
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, the provisions
of law amended by such sections, and any regulations
promulgated pursuant to such sections, as were in effect on
December 30, 2014, are restored and revived.
(c) Effective Date.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall take
effect on the date that is 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 305. REMEDIATING LEAD AND ASBESTOS HAZARDS.
Section 109(a)(1) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5219(a)(1)) is amended, in the second
sentence, by inserting ``and to remediate lead and asbestos
hazards in residential properties'' before the period at the
end.
SEC. 306. FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 23 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437u) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``public housing and''; and
(B) by striking ``the certificate and voucher programs
under section 8'' and inserting ``sections 8 and 9'';
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Continuation of Prior Required Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Each public housing agency that was
required to administer a local Family Self-Sufficiency
program on the date of enactment of the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act shall operate
such local program for, at a minimum, the number of families
the agency was required to serve on the date of enactment of
such Act, subject only to the availability under
appropriations Acts of sufficient amounts for housing
assistance and the requirements of paragraph (2).
``(2) Reduction.--The number of families for which a public
housing agency is required to operate such local program
under paragraph (1) shall be decreased by 1 for each family
from any supported rental housing program administered by
such agency that, after October 21, 1998, fulfills its
obligations under the contract of participation.
``(3) Exception.--The Secretary shall not require a public
housing agency to carry out a mandatory program for a period
of time upon the request of the public housing agency and
upon a determination by the Secretary that implementation is
not feasible because of local circumstances, which may
include--
``(A) lack of supportive services accessible to eligible
families, which shall include insufficient availability of
resources for programs under title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);
``(B) lack of funding for reasonable administrative costs;
``(C) lack of cooperation by other units of State or local
government; or
``(D) any other circumstances that the Secretary may
consider appropriate.'';
(3) by striking subsection (i);
(4) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g),
and (h) as subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i)
respectively;
(5) by inserting after subsection (b), as amended, the
following:
``(c) Eligibility.--
``(1) Eligible families.--A family is eligible to
participate in a local Family Self-Sufficiency program under
this section if--
``(A) at least 1 household member seeks to become and
remain employed in suitable employment or to increase
earnings; and
``(B) the household member receives direct assistance under
section 8 or resides in a unit assisted under section 8 or 9.
``(2) Eligible entities.--The following entities are
eligible to administer a local Family Self-Sufficiency
program under this section:
``(A) A public housing agency administering housing
assistance to or on behalf of an eligible family under
section 8 or 9.
``(B) The owner or sponsor of a multifamily property
receiving project-based rental assistance under section 8, in
accordance with the requirements under subsection (l).'';
(6) in subsection (d), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``public housing agency'' the first time it
appears and inserting ``eligible entity'';
(ii) in the first sentence, by striking ``each leaseholder
receiving assistance under the certificate and voucher
programs of the public housing agency under section 8 or
residing in public housing administered by the agency'' and
inserting ``a household member of an eligible family''; and
(iii) by striking the third sentence and inserting the
following: ``Housing assistance may not be terminated as a
consequence of either successful completion of the contract
of participation or failure to complete such contract. A
contract of participation shall
[[Page S1558]]
remain in effect until the participating family exits the
Family Self-Sufficiency program upon successful graduation or
expiration of the contract of participation, or for other
good cause.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(I) in the first sentence--
(aa) by striking ``A local program under this section'' and
inserting ``An eligible entity'';
(bb) by striking ``provide'' and inserting ``coordinate'';
and
(cc) by striking ``to'' and inserting ``for''; and
(II) in the second sentence--
(aa) by striking ``provided during'' and inserting
``coordinated for'';
(bb) by striking ``under section 8 or residing in public
housing'' and inserting ``pursuant to section 8 or 9 and for
the duration of the contract of participation''; and
(cc) by inserting ``, but are not limited to'' after ``may
include'';
(ii) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``or attainment of a
high school equivalency certificate'' after ``high school'';
(iii) by striking subparagraph (G);
(iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (J) as
subparagraphs (F), (G), and (K) respectively;
(v) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) education in pursuit of a post-secondary degree or
certification;'';
(vi) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``financial
literacy, such as training in financial management, financial
coaching, and asset building, and'' after ``training in'';
(vii) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(viii) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following:
``(J) homeownership education and assistance; and''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the first sentence, by inserting ``the first
recertification of income after'' after ``not later than 5
years after''; and
(ii) in the second sentence--
(I) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity''; and
(II) by striking ``of the agency'';
(D) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Employment.--The contract of participation shall
require 1 household member of the participating family to
seek and maintain suitable employment.''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Nonparticipation.--Assistance under section 8 or 9
for a family that elects not to participate in a Family Self-
Sufficiency program shall not be delayed by reason of such
election.'';
(7) in subsection (e), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``whose monthly adjusted
income does not exceed 50 percent'' and all that follows
through the period at the end of the third sentence and
inserting ``shall be calculated under the rental provisions
of section 3 or section 8(o), as applicable.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``For each participating family, an amount equal
to any increase in the amount of rent paid by the family in
accordance with the provisions of section 3 or 8(o), as
applicable, that is attributable to increases in earned
income by the participating family, shall be placed in an
interest-bearing escrow account established by the eligible
entity on behalf of the participating family. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, an eligible entity may use funds
it controls under section 8 or 9 for purposes of making the
escrow deposit for participating families assisted under, or
residing in units assisted under, section 8 or 9,
respectively, provided such funds are offset by the increase
in the amount of rent paid by the participating family.'';
(ii) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following: ``All Family Self-Sufficiency programs
administered under this section shall include an escrow
account.'';
(iii) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``subsection
(c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''; and
(iv) in the last sentence--
(I) by striking ``A public housing agency'' and inserting
``An eligible entity''; and
(II) by striking ``the public housing agency'' and
inserting ``such eligible entity''; and
(C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) Forfeited escrow.--Any amount placed in an escrow
account established by an eligible entity for a participating
family as required under paragraph (2), that exists after the
end of a contract of participation by a household member of a
participating family that does not qualify to receive the
escrow, shall be used by the eligible entity for the benefit
of participating families in good standing.'';
(8) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by striking ``,
unless the income of the family equals or exceeds 80 percent
of the median income of the area (as determined by the
Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger
families)'';
(9) in subsection (g), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(ii) by striking ``the public housing agency'' and
inserting ``such eligible entity''; and
(iii) by striking ``subsection (g)'' and inserting
``subsection (h)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity'' each place that term appears;
(ii) by striking ``or the Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills Training Program under part F of title IV of the
Social Security Act'';
(iii) by inserting ``primary, secondary, and post-
secondary'' after ``public and private''; and
(iv) in the second sentence, by inserting ``and tenants
served by the program'' after ``the unit of general local
government'';
(10) in subsection (h), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(ii) by striking ``participating in the'' and inserting
``carrying out a''; and
(iii) by striking ``to the Secretary'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(ii) by striking ``subsection (f)'' and inserting
``subsection (g)'';
(iii) by striking ``residents of the public housing'' and
inserting ``the current and prospective participants of the
program''; and
(iv) by striking ``or the Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills Training Program under part F of title IV of the
Social Security Act''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (C)--
(I) by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)(2)'';
(II) by striking ``provided to'' and inserting
``coordinated on behalf of participating'';
(III) by inserting ``direct'' before ``assistance''; and
(IV) by striking ``the section 8 and public housing
programs'' and inserting ``sections 8 and 9'';
(ii) in subparagraph (D)--
(I) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting
``subsection (e)''; and
(II) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``deliver'' and
inserting ``coordinate'';
(iv) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``the Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program under part F
of title IV of the Social Security Act and''; and
(v) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``public housing or
section 8 assistance'' and inserting ``assistance under
section 8 or 9'';
(11) by amending subsection (i), as so redesignated, to
read as follows:
``(i) Family Self-Sufficiency Awards.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to appropriations, the Secretary
shall establish a formula by which annual funds shall be
awarded or as otherwise determined by the Secretary for the
costs incurred by an eligible entity in administering the
Family Self-Sufficiency program under this section.
``(2) Eligibility for awards.--The award established under
paragraph (1) shall provide funding for family self-
sufficiency coordinators as follows:
``(A) Base award.--An eligible entity serving 25 or more
participants in the Family Self-Sufficiency program under
this section is eligible to receive an award equal to the
costs, as determined by the Secretary, of 1 full-time family
self-sufficiency coordinator position. The Secretary may, by
regulation or notice, determine the policy concerning the
award for an eligible entity serving fewer than 25 such
participants, including providing prorated awards or allowing
such entities to combine their programs under this section
for purposes of employing a coordinator.
``(B) Additional award.--An eligible entity that meets
performance standards set by the Secretary is eligible to
receive an additional award sufficient to cover the costs of
filling an additional family self-sufficiency coordinator
position if such entity has 75 or more participating
families, and an additional coordinator for each additional
50 participating families, or such other ratio as may be
established by the Secretary based on the award allocation
evaluation under subparagraph (E).
``(C) State and regional agencies.--For purposes of
calculating the award under this paragraph, each
administratively distinct part of a State or regional
eligible entity may be treated as a separate agency.
``(D) Determination of number of coordinators.--In
determining whether an eligible entity meets a specific
threshold for funding pursuant to this paragraph, the
Secretary shall consider the number of participants enrolled
by the eligible entity in its Family Self-Sufficiency program
as well as other criteria determined by the Secretary.
``(E) Award allocation evaluation.--The Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report evaluating the award allocation
under this subsection, and make recommendations based on this
evaluation and other related findings to modify such
allocation, within 4 years after the date of enactment of the
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection
Act, and not less frequently than every 4 years thereafter.
The report requirement under this subparagraph shall
terminate after the Secretary has submitted 2 such reports to
Congress.
``(3) Renewals and allocation.--
``(A) In general.--Funds allocated by the Secretary under
this subsection shall be allocated in the following order of
priority:
``(i) First priority.--Renewal of the full cost of all
coordinators in the previous year
[[Page S1559]]
at each eligible entity with an existing Family Self-
Sufficiency program that meets applicable performance
standards set by the Secretary.
``(ii) Second priority.--New or incremental coordinator
funding authorized under this section.
``(B) Guidance.--If the first priority, as described in
subparagraph (A)(i), cannot be fully satisfied, the Secretary
may prorate the funding for each eligible entity, as long
as--
``(i) each eligible entity that has received funding for at
least 1 part-time coordinator in the prior fiscal year is
provided sufficient funding for at least 1 part-time
coordinator as part of any such proration; and
``(ii) each eligible entity that has received funding for
at least 1 full-time coordinator in the prior fiscal year is
provided sufficient funding for at least 1 full-time
coordinator as part of any such proration.
``(4) Recapture or offset.--Any awards allocated under this
subsection by the Secretary in a fiscal year that have not
been spent by the end of the subsequent fiscal year or such
other time period as determined by the Secretary may be
recaptured by the Secretary and shall be available for
providing additional awards pursuant to paragraph (2)(B), or
may be offset as determined by the Secretary. Funds
appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available
for 3 years in order to facilitate the re-use of any
recaptured funds for this purpose.
``(5) Performance reporting.--Programs under this section
shall be required to report the number of families enrolled
and graduated, the number of established escrow accounts and
positive escrow balances, and any other information that the
Secretary may require. Program performance shall be reviewed
periodically as determined by the Secretary.
``(6) Incentives for innovation and high performance.--The
Secretary may reserve up to 5 percent of the amounts made
available under this subsection to provide support to or
reward Family Self-Sufficiency programs based on the rate of
successful completion, increased earned income, or other
factors as may be established by the Secretary.'';
(12) in subsection (j)--
(A) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity'';
(B) by striking ``public housing'' before ``units'';
(C) by striking ``in public housing projects administered
by the agency'';
(D) by inserting ``or coordination'' after ``provision'';
and
(E) by striking the last sentence;
(13) in subsection (k), by striking ``public housing
agencies'' and inserting ``eligible entities'';
(14) by striking subsection (n);
(15) by striking subsection (o);
(16) by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as
subsections (m) and (n), respectively;
(17) by inserting after subsection (k) the following:
``(l) Programs for Tenants in Privately Owned Properties
With Project-Based Assistance.--
``(1) Voluntary availability of fss program.--The owner of
a privately owned property may voluntarily make a Family
Self-Sufficiency program available to the tenants of such
property in accordance with procedures established by the
Secretary. Such procedures shall permit the owner to enter
into a cooperative agreement with a local public housing
agency that administers a Family Self-Sufficiency program or,
at the owner's option, operate a Family Self-Sufficiency
program on its own or in partnership with another owner. An
owner, who voluntarily makes a Family Self-Sufficiency
program available pursuant to this subsection, may access
funding from any residual receipt accounts for the property
to hire a family self-sufficiency coordinator or coordinators
for their program.
``(2) Cooperative agreement.--Any cooperative agreement
entered into pursuant to paragraph (1) shall require the
public housing agency to open its Family Self-Sufficiency
program waiting list to any eligible family residing in the
owner's property who resides in a unit assisted under
project-based rental assistance.
``(3) Treatment of families assisted under this
subsection.--A public housing agency that enters into a
cooperative agreement pursuant to paragraph (1) may count any
family participating in its Family Self-Sufficiency program
as a result of such agreement as part of the calculation of
the award under subsection (i).
``(4) Escrow.--
``(A) Cooperative agreement.--A cooperative agreement
entered into pursuant to paragraph (1) shall provide for the
calculation and tracking of the escrow for participating
residents and for the owner to make available, upon request
of the public housing agency, escrow for participating
residents, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (e), residing in units assisted under section 8.
``(B) Calculation and tracking by owner.--The owner of a
privately owned property who voluntarily makes a Family Self-
Sufficiency program available pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
calculate and track the escrow for participating residents
and make escrow for participating residents available in
accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (e).
``(5) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to
properties assisted under section 8(o)(13).
``(6) Suspension of enrollment.--In any year, the Secretary
may suspend the enrollment of new families in Family Self-
Sufficiency programs under this subsection based on a
determination that insufficient funding is available for this
purpose.'';
(18) in subsection (m), as so redesignated--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Each public
housing agency'' and inserting ``Each eligible entity'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``The report shall
include'' and inserting ``The contents of the report shall
include''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (D)--
(I) by striking ``public housing agency'' and inserting
``eligible entity''; and
(II) by striking ``local''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and describing any
additional research needs of the Secretary to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program'' after ``under paragraph (1)'';
(19) in subsection (n), as so redesignated, by striking
``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(20) by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means an
entity that meets the requirements under subsection (c)(2) to
administer a Family Self-Sufficiency program under this
section.
``(2) Eligible family.--The term `eligible family' means a
family that meets the requirements under subsection (c)(1) to
participate in the Family Self-Sufficiency program under this
section.
``(3) Participating family.--The term `participating
family' means an eligible family that is participating in the
Family Self-Sufficiency program under this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Not later than 360 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall issue regulations to implement this section
and any amendments made by this section, and this section and
any amendments made by this section shall take effect upon
such issuance.
SEC. 307. PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY FINANCING.
Section 129C(b)(3) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1639c(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Consideration of underwriting requirements for
property assessed clean energy financing.--
``(i) Definition.--In this subparagraph, the term `Property
Assessed Clean Energy financing' means financing to cover the
costs of home improvements that results in a tax assessment
on the real property of the consumer.
``(ii) Regulations.--The Bureau shall prescribe regulations
that carry out the purposes of subsection (a) and apply
section 130 with respect to violations under subsection (a)
of this section with respect to Property Assessed Clean
Energy financing, which shall account for the unique nature
of Property Assessed Clean Energy financing.
``(iii) Collection of information and consultation.--In
prescribing the regulations under this subparagraph, the
Bureau--
``(I) may collect such information and data that the Bureau
determines is necessary; and
``(II) shall consult with State and local governments and
bond-issuing authorities.''.
SEC. 308. GAO REPORT ON CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``consumer'',
``consumer report'', and ``consumer reporting agency'' have
the meanings given those terms in section 603 of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a).
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives a comprehensive
report that includes--
(1) a review of the current legal and regulatory structure
for consumer reporting agencies and an analysis of any gaps
in that structure, including, in particular, the rulemaking,
supervisory, and enforcement authority of State and Federal
agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681
et seq.), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102; 113
Stat. 1338), and any other relevant statutes;
(2) a review of the process by which consumers can appeal
and expunge errors on their consumer reports;
(3) a review of the causes of consumer reporting errors;
(4) a review of the responsibilities of data furnishers to
ensure that accurate information is initially reported to
consumer reporting agencies and to ensure that such
information continues to be accurate;
(5) a review of data security relating to consumer
reporting agencies and their efforts to safeguard consumer
data;
(6) a review of who has access to, and may use, consumer
reports;
(7) a review of who has control or ownership of a
consumer's credit data;
(8) an analysis of--
(A) which Federal and State regulatory agencies supervise
and enforce laws relating to how consumer reporting agencies
protect consumer data; and
(B) all laws relating to data security applicable to
consumer reporting agencies; and
[[Page S1560]]
(9) recommendations to Congress on how to improve the
consumer reporting system, including legislative, regulatory,
and industry-specific recommendations.
SEC. 309. PROTECTING VETERANS FROM PREDATORY LENDING.
(a) Protecting Veterans From Predatory Lending.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3709. Refinancing of housing loans
``(a) Fee Recoupment.--Except as provided in subsection (d)
and notwithstanding section 3703 of this title or any other
provision of law, a loan to a veteran for a purpose specified
in section 3710 of this title that is being refinanced may
not be guaranteed or insured under this chapter unless--
``(1) the issuer of the refinanced loan provides the
Secretary with a certification of the recoupment period for
fees, closing costs, and any expenses (other than taxes,
amounts held in escrow, and fees paid under this chapter)
that would be incurred by the borrower in the refinancing of
the loan;
``(2) all of the fees and incurred costs are scheduled to
be recouped on or before the date that is 36 months after the
date of loan issuance; and
``(3) the recoupment is calculated through lower regular
monthly payments (other than taxes, amounts held in escrow,
and fees paid under this chapter) as a result of the
refinanced loan.
``(b) Net Tangible Benefit Test.--Except as provided in
subsection (d) and notwithstanding section 3703 of this title
or any other provision of law, a loan to a veteran for a
purpose specified in section 3710 of this title that is
refinanced may not be guaranteed or insured under this
chapter unless--
``(1) the issuer of the refinanced loan provides the
borrower with a net tangible benefit test;
``(2) in a case in which the original loan had a fixed rate
mortgage interest rate and the refinanced loan will have a
fixed rate mortgage interest rate, the refinanced loan has a
mortgage interest rate that is not less than 50 basis points
less than the previous loan;
``(3) in a case in which the original loan had a fixed rate
mortgage interest rate and the refinanced loan will have an
adjustable rate mortgage interest rate, the refinanced loan
has a mortgage interest rate that is not less than 200 basis
points less than the previous loan; and
``(4) the lower interest rate is not produced solely from
discount points, unless--
``(A) such points are paid at closing; and
``(B) such points are not added to the principal loan
amount, unless--
``(i) for discount point amounts that are less than or
equal to one discount point, the resulting loan balance after
any fees and expenses allows the property with respect to
which the loan was issued to maintain a loan to value ratio
of 100 percent or less; and
``(ii) for discount point amounts that are greater than one
discount point, the resulting loan balance after any fees and
expenses allows the property with respect to which the loan
was issued to maintain a loan to value ratio of 90 percent or
less.
``(c) Loan Seasoning.--Except as provided in subsection (d)
and notwithstanding section 3703 of this title or any other
provision of law, a loan to a veteran for a purpose specified
in section 3710 of this title that is refinanced may not be
guaranteed or insured under this chapter until the date that
is the later of--
``(1) the date that is 210 days after the date on which the
first monthly payment is made on the loan; and
``(2) the date on which the sixth monthly payment is made
on the loan.
``(d) Cash-out Refinances.--(1) Subsections (a) through (c)
shall not apply in a case of a loan refinancing in which the
amount of the principal for the new loan to be guaranteed or
insured under this chapter is larger than the payoff amount
of the refinanced loan.
``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate
such rules as the Secretary considers appropriate with
respect to refinancing described in paragraph (1) to ensure
that such refinancing is in the financial interest of the
borrower, including rules relating to recoupment, seasoning,
and net tangible benefits.''.
(2) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--In prescribing any regulation to carry out
section 3709 of title 38, United States Code, as added by
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may waive
the requirements of sections 551 through 559 of title 5,
United States Code, if--
(i) the Secretary determines that urgent or compelling
circumstances make compliance with such requirements
impracticable or contrary to the public interest;
(ii) the Secretary submits to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the House of Representatives, and publishes in the Federal
Register, notice of such waiver, including a description of
the determination made under clause (i); and
(iii) a period of 10 days elapses following the
notification under clause (ii).
(B) Public notice and comment.--If a regulation prescribed
pursuant to a waiver made under subparagraph (A) is in effect
for a period exceeding 1 year, the Secretary shall provide
the public an opportunity for notice and comment regarding
such regulation.
(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(D) Termination date.--The authorities under this paragraph
shall terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(3) Report on cash-out refinances.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, in
consultation with the President of the Ginnie Mae, submit to
Congress a report on refinancing--
(i) of loans--
(I) made to veterans for purposes specified in section 3710
of title 38, United States Code; and
(II) that were guaranteed or insured under chapter 37 of
such title; and
(ii) in which the amount of the principal for the new loan
to be guaranteed or insured under such chapter is larger than
the payoff amount of the refinanced loan.
(B) Contents.--The report required by subparagraph (A)
shall include the following:
(i) An assessment of whether additional requirements,
including a net tangible benefit test, fee recoupment period,
and loan seasoning requirement, are necessary to ensure that
the refinancing described in subparagraph (A) is in the
financial interest of the borrower.
(ii) Such recommendations as the Secretary may have for
additional legislative or administrative action to ensure
that refinancing described in subparagraph (A) is carried out
in the financial interest of the borrower.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3709
the following new item:
``3709. Refinancing of housing loans.''.
(b) Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae Mortgage-backed
Securities.--Section 306(g)(1) of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended by inserting ``The
Association may not guarantee the timely payment of principal
and interest on a security that is backed by a mortgage
insured or guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code, and that was refinanced until the later of the
date that is 210 days after the date on which the first
monthly payment is made on the mortgage being refinanced and
the date on which 6 full monthly payments have been made on
the mortgage being refinanced.'' after ``Act of 1992.''.
(c) Report on Liquidity of the Department of Veterans
Affairs Housing Loan Program.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the President of the Ginnie Mae shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
liquidity of the housing loan program under chapter 37 of
title 38, United States Code, in the secondary mortgage
market, which shall--
(A) assess the loans provided under that chapter that
collateralize mortgage-backed securities that are guaranteed
by Ginnie Mae; and
(B) include recommendations for actions that Ginnie Mae
should take to ensure that the liquidity of that housing loan
program is maintained.
(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(i) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee
on Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
(B) Ginnie mae.--The term ``Ginnie Mae'' means the
Government National Mortgage Association.
(d) Annual Report on Document Disclosure and Consumer
Education.--Not less frequently than once each year, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall issue a publicly
available report that--
(1) examines, with respect to loans provided to veterans
under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code--
(A) the refinancing of fixed-rate mortgage loans to
adjustable rate mortgage loans;
(B) whether veterans are informed of the risks and
disclosures associated with that refinancing; and
(C) whether advertising materials for that refinancing are
clear and do not contain misleading statements or assertions;
and
(2) includes findings based on any complaints received by
veterans and on an ongoing assessment of the refinancing
market by the Secretary.
SEC. 310. CREDIT SCORE COMPETITION.
(a) Use of Credit Scores by Fannie Mae in Purchasing
Residential Mortgages.--Section 302(b) of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7)(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `credit score' means a numerical value or a
categorization created by a third party derived from a
statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who
makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain
credit behaviors, including default; and
``(ii) the term `residential mortgage' has the meaning
given the term in section 302 of
[[Page S1561]]
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C.
1451).
``(B) Use of Credit Scores.--The corporation shall
condition purchase of a residential mortgage by the
corporation under this subsection on the provision of a
credit score for the borrower only if--
``(i) the credit score is derived from any credit scoring
model that has been validated and approved by the corporation
under this paragraph; and
``(ii) the corporation provides for the use of the credit
score by all of the automated underwriting systems of the
corporation and any other procedures and systems used by the
corporation to purchase residential mortgages that use a
credit score.
``(C) Validation and Approval Process.--The corporation
shall establish a validation and approval process for the use
of credit score models, under which the corporation may not
validate and approve a credit score model unless the credit
score model--
``(i) satisfies minimum requirements of integrity,
reliability, and accuracy;
``(ii) has a historical record of measuring and predicting
default rates and other credit behaviors;
``(iii) is consistent with the safe and sound operation of
the corporation;
``(iv) complies with any standards and criteria established
by the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency under
section 1328(1) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992; and
``(v) satisfies any other requirements, as determined by
the corporation.
``(D) Replacement of Credit Score Model.--If the
corporation has validated and approved 1 or more credit score
models under subparagraph (C) and the corporation validates
and approves an additional credit score model, the
corporation may determine that--
``(i) the additional credit score model has replaced the
credit score model or credit score models previously
validated and approved; and
``(ii) the credit score model or credit score models
previously validated and approved shall no longer be
considered validated and approved for the purposes of
subparagraph (B).
``(E) Public Disclosure.--Upon establishing the validation
and approval process required under subparagraph (C), the
corporation shall make publicly available a description of
the validation and approval process.
``(F) Application.--Not later than 30 days after the
effective date of this paragraph, the corporation shall
solicit applications from developers of credit scoring models
for the validation and approval of those models under the
process required under subparagraph (C).
``(G) Timeframe for Determination; Notice.--
``(i) In general.--The corporation shall make a
determination with respect to any application submitted under
subparagraph (F), and provide notice of that determination to
the applicant, before a date established by the corporation
that is not later than 180 days after the date on which an
application is submitted to the corporation.
``(ii) Extensions.--The Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency may authorize not more than 2 extensions of
the date established under clause (i), each of which shall
not exceed 30 days, upon a written request and a showing of
good cause by the corporation.
``(iii) Status notice.--The corporation shall provide
notice to an applicant regarding the status of an application
submitted under subparagraph (F) not later than 60 days after
the date on which the application was submitted to the
corporation.
``(iv) Reasons for disapproval.--If an application
submitted under subparagraph (F) is disapproved, the
corporation shall provide to the applicant the reasons for
the disapproval not later than 30 days after a determination
is made under this subparagraph.
``(H) Authority of Director.--If the corporation elects to
use a credit score model under this paragraph, the Director
of the Federal Housing Finance Agency shall require the
corporation to periodically review the validation and
approval process required under subparagraph (C) as the
Director determines necessary to ensure that the process
remains appropriate and adequate and complies with any
standards and criteria established pursuant to section
1328(1) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety
and Soundness Act of 1992.
``(I) Extension.--If, as of the effective date of this
paragraph, a credit score model has not been approved under
subparagraph (C), the corporation may use a credit score
model that was in use before the effective date of this
paragraph, if necessary to prevent substantial market
disruptions, until the earlier of--
``(i) the date on which a credit score model is validated
and approved under subparagraph (C); or
``(ii) the date that is 2 years after the effective date of
this paragraph.''.
(b) Use of Credit Scores by Freddie Mac in Purchasing
Residential Mortgages.--Section 305 of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `credit
score' means a numerical value or a categorization created by
a third party derived from a statistical tool or modeling
system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to
predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including
default.
``(2) Use of Credit Scores.--The Corporation shall
condition purchase of a residential mortgage by the
Corporation under this section on the provision of a credit
score for the borrower only if--
``(A) the credit score is derived from any credit scoring
model that has been validated and approved by the Corporation
under this subsection; and
``(B) the Corporation provides for the use of the credit
score by all of the automated underwriting systems of the
Corporation and any other procedures and systems used by the
Corporation to purchase residential mortgages that use a
credit score.
``(3) Validation and Approval Process.--The Corporation
shall establish a validation and approval process for the use
of credit score models, under which the Corporation may not
validate and approve a credit score model unless the credit
score model--
``(A) satisfies minimum requirements of integrity,
reliability, and accuracy;
``(B) has a historical record of measuring and predicting
default rates and other credit behaviors;
``(C) is consistent with the safe and sound operation of
the corporation;
``(D) complies with any standards and criteria established
by the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency under
section 1328(1) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992; and
``(E) satisfies any other requirements, as determined by
the Corporation.
``(4) Replacement of Credit Score Model.--If the
Corporation has validated and approved 1 or more credit score
models under paragraph (3) and the Corporation validates and
approves an additional credit score model, the Corporation
may determine that--
``(A) the additional credit score model has replaced the
credit score model or credit score models previously
validated and approved; and
``(B) the credit score model or credit score models
previously validated and approved shall no longer be
considered validated and approved for the purposes of
paragraph (2).
``(5) Public Disclosure.--Upon establishing the validation
and approval process required under paragraph (3), the
Corporation shall make publicly available a description of
the validation and approval process.
``(6) Application.--Not later than 30 days after the
effective date of this subsection, the Corporation shall
solicit applications from developers of credit scoring models
for the validation and approval of those models under the
process required under paragraph (3).
``(7) Timeframe for Determination; Notice.--
``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall make a
determination with respect to any application submitted under
paragraph (6), and provide notice of that determination to
the applicant, before a date established by the Corporation
that is not later than 180 days after the date on which an
application is submitted to the Corporation.
``(B) Extensions.--The Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency may authorize not more than 2 extensions of
the date established under subparagraph (A), each of which
shall not exceed 30 days, upon a written request and a
showing of good cause by the Corporation.
``(C) Status notice.--The Corporation shall provide notice
to an applicant regarding the status of an application
submitted under paragraph (6) not later than 60 days after
the date on which the application was submitted to the
Corporation.
``(D) Reasons for disapproval.--If an application submitted
under paragraph (6) is disapproved, the Corporation shall
provide to the applicant the reasons for the disapproval not
later than 30 days after a determination is made under this
paragraph.
``(8) Authority of Director.--If the Corporation elects to
use a credit score under this subsection, the Director of the
Federal Housing Finance Agency shall require the Corporation
to periodically review the validation and approval process
required under paragraph (3) as the Director determines
necessary to ensure that the process remains appropriate and
adequate and complies with any standards and criteria
established pursuant to section 1328(1) of the Federal
Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of
1992.
``(9) Extension.--If, as of the effective date of this
subsection, a credit score model has not been approved under
paragraph (3), the Corporation may use a credit score model
that was in use before the effective date of this subsection,
if necessary to prevent substantial market disruptions, until
the earlier of--
``(A) the date on which a credit score model is validated
and approved under paragraph (3); or
``(B) the date that is 2 years after the effective date of
this subsection.''.
(c) Authority of the Director.--Subpart A of part 2 of
subtitle A of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4541 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1328. REGULATIONS FOR USE OF CREDIT SCORES.
``The Director shall--
``(1) by regulation, establish standards and criteria for
any process used by an enterprise to validate and approve
credit scoring models pursuant to section 302(b)(7) of the
Federal National Mortgage Association Charter
[[Page S1562]]
Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b)(7)) and section 305(d) of the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(d)); and
``(2) ensure that any credit scoring model that is
validated and approved by an enterprise under section
302(b)(7) (12 U.S.C. 1717(b)(7)) of the Federal National
Mortgage Association Charter Act or section 305(d) of the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C.
1454(d)) meets the requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and
(iii) of section 302(b)(7)(C) of the Federal National
Mortgage Association Charter Act and subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) of section 305(d)(3) of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation Act, respectively.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 311. GAO REPORT ON PUERTO RICO FORECLOSURES.
Not earlier than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives a report on foreclosures in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including--
(1) the rate of foreclosures in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico before and after Hurricane Maria;
(2) the rate of return for housing developers in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico before and after Hurricane Maria;
(3) the rate of delinquency in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico before and after Hurricane Maria;
(4) the rate of homeownership in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico before and after Hurricane Maria; and
(5) the rate of defaults on federally insured mortgages in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico before and after Hurricane
Maria.
SEC. 312. REPORT ON CHILDREN'S LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD
PREVENTION AND ABATEMENT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Housing
and Urban Development; and
(2) the term ``public housing agency'' has the meaning
given the term in section 3(b) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)).
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit to Congress a report that includes--
(1) an overview of existing policies and enforcement of the
Department, including public outreach, relating to lead-based
paint hazard prevention and abatement;
(2) recommendations and best practices for the Department,
public housing agencies, and landlords for improving lead-
based paint hazard prevention standards and Federal lead
prevention and abatement policies to protect the
environmental health and safety of children, including within
housing receiving assistance from or occupied by families
receiving housing assistance from the Department; and
(3) recommendations for legislation to improve lead-based
paint hazard prevention and abatement.
SEC. 313. FORECLOSURE RELIEF AND EXTENSION FOR
SERVICEMEMBERS.
Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and
Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-
154; 50 U.S.C. 3953 note) is amended by striking paragraphs
(1) and (3).
TITLE IV--TAILORING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
SEC. 401. ENHANCED SUPERVISION AND PRUDENTIAL STANDARDS FOR
CERTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Section 165 of the Financial Stability Act
of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5365) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``$50,000,000,000'' and inserting
``$250,000,000,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``may'' and inserting
``shall'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$50,000,000,000''
and inserting ``the applicable threshold''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Risks to financial stability and safety and
soundness.--The Board of Governors may by order or rule
promulgated pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States
Code, apply any prudential standard established under this
section to any bank holding company or bank holding companies
with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than
$100,000,000,000 to which the prudential standard does not
otherwise apply provided that the Board of Governors--
``(i) determines that application of the prudential
standard is appropriate--
``(I) to prevent or mitigate risks to the financial
stability of the United States, as described in paragraph
(1); or
``(II) to promote the safety and soundness of the bank
holding company or bank holding companies; and
``(ii) takes into consideration the bank holding company's
or bank holding companies' capital structure, riskiness,
complexity, financial activities (including financial
activities of subsidiaries), size, and any other risk-related
factors that the Board of Governors deems appropriate.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by striking ``and credit
exposure report''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ``, including
credit exposure reports'' before the semicolon at the end;
(3) in subsection (d)(2), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``shall'' and inserting
``may'';
(4) in subsection (h)(2), by striking ``$10,000,000,000''
each place that term appears and inserting
``$50,000,000,000'';
(5) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(i)--
(i) by striking ``3'' and inserting ``2''; and
(ii) by striking ``, adverse,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``semiannual'' and
inserting ``periodic''; and
(II) in the second sentence--
(aa) by striking ``$10,000,000,000'' and inserting
``$250,000,000,000''; and
(bb) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``periodic''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii)--
(I) by striking ``3'' and inserting ``2''; and
(II) by striking ``, adverse,''; and
(6) in subsection (j)(1), in the first sentence, by
striking ``$50,000,000,000'' and inserting
``$250,000,000,000''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall
be construed to limit--
(1) the authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, in prescribing prudential standards under
section 165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C.
5365) or any other law, to tailor or differentiate among
companies on an individual basis or by category, taking into
consideration their capital structure, riskiness, complexity,
financial activities (including financial activities of their
subsidiaries), size, and any other risk-related factors that
the Board of Governors deems appropriate; or
(2) the supervisory, regulatory, or enforcement authority
of an appropriate Federal banking agency to further the safe
and sound operation of an institution under the supervision
of the appropriate Federal banking agency.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Financial stability act of 2010.--The Financial
Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 115(a)(2)(B) (12 U.S.C. 5325(a)(2)(B)), by
striking ``$50,000,000,000'' and inserting ``the applicable
threshold'';
(B) in section 116(a) (12 U.S.C. 5326(a)), in the matter
preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``$50,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$250,000,000,000'';
(C) in section 121(a) (12 U.S.C. 5331(a)), in the matter
preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``$50,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$250,000,000,000'';
(D) in section 155(d) (12 U.S.C. 5345(d)), by striking
``50,000,000,000'' and inserting ``$250,000,000,000'';
(E) in section 163(b) (12 U.S.C. 5363(b)), by striking
``$50,000,000,000'' each place that term appears and
inserting ``$250,000,000,000''; and
(F) in section 164 (12 U.S.C. 5364), by striking
``$50,000,000,000'' and inserting ``$250,000,000,000''.
(2) Federal reserve act.--The second subsection (s)
(relating to assessments) of section 11 of the Federal
Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(s)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$50,000,000,000''
and inserting ``$100,000,000,000''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$50,000,000,000''
and inserting ``$100,000,000,000''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Tailoring assessments.--In collecting assessments,
fees, or other charges under paragraph (1) from each company
described in paragraph (2) with total consolidated assets of
between $100,000,000,000 and $250,000,000,000, the Board
shall adjust the amount charged to reflect any changes in
supervisory and regulatory responsibilities resulting from
the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act with respect to each such company.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date
that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date
of enactment of this Act with respect to any bank holding
company with total consolidated assets of less than
$100,000,000,000.
(3) Additional authority.--Before the effective date
described in paragraph (1), the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System may by order exempt any bank holding
company with total consolidated assets of less than
$250,000,000,000 from any prudential standard under section
165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5365).
(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System from issuing an order or rule making under
section 165(a)(2)(C) of the Financial Stability Act of 2010
(12 U.S.C. 5365(a)(2)(C)), as added by this section, before
the effective date described in paragraph (1).
(e) Supervisory Stress Test.--Beginning on the effective
date described in subsection
[[Page S1563]]
(d)(1), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
shall, on a periodic basis, conduct supervisory stress tests
of bank holding companies with total consolidated assets
equal to or greater than $100,000,000,000 and total
consolidated assets of less than $250,000,000,000 to evaluate
whether such bank holding companies have the capital, on a
total consolidated basis, necessary to absorb losses as a
result of adverse economic conditions.
(f) Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies.--
Any bank holding company, regardless of asset size, that has
been identified as a global systemically important BHC under
section 217.402 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations,
shall be considered a bank holding company with total
consolidated assets equal to or greater than $250,000,000,000
with respect to the application of standards or requirements
under--
(1) this section;
(2) sections 116(a), 121(a), 155(d), 163(b), 164, and 165
of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5326(a),
5331(a), 5345(d), 5363(b), 5364, 5365); and
(3) paragraph (2)(A) of the second subsection (s) (relating
to assessments) of section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12
U.S.C. 248(s)(2)).
(g) Clarification for Foreign Banks.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to--
(1) affect the legal effect of the final rule of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System entitled
``Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding Companies
and Foreign Banking Organizations'' (79 Fed. Reg. 17240
(March 27, 2014)) as applied to foreign banking organizations
with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than
$100,000,000,000; or
(2) limit the authority of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System to require the establishment of an
intermediate holding company under, implement enhanced
prudential standards with respect to, or tailor the
regulation of a foreign banking organization with total
consolidated assets equal to or greater than
$100,000,000,000.
SEC. 402. SUPPLEMENTARY LEVERAGE RATIO FOR CUSTODIAL BANKS.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``custodial
bank'' means any depository institution holding company
predominantly engaged in custody, safekeeping, and asset
servicing activities, including any insured depository
institution subsidiary of such a holding company.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``central
bank'' means--
(A) the Federal Reserve System;
(B) the European Central Bank; and
(C) central banks of member countries of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, if--
(i) the member country has been assigned a zero percent
risk weight under sections 3.32, 217.32, and 324.32 of title
12, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation;
and
(ii) the sovereign debt of such member country is not in
default or has not been in default during the previous 5
years.
(2) Regulations.--The appropriate Federal banking agencies
shall promulgate regulations to amend sections 3.10, 217.10,
and 324.10 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, to
specify that--
(A) subject to subparagraph (B), funds of a custodial bank
that are deposited with a central bank shall not be taken
into account when calculating the supplementary leverage
ratio as applied to the custodial bank; and
(B) with respect to the funds described in subparagraph
(A), any amount that exceeds the total value of deposits of
the custodial bank that are linked to fiduciary or custodial
and safekeeping accounts shall be taken into account when
calculating the supplementary leverage ratio as applied to
the custodial bank.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (b) shall
be construed to limit the authority of the appropriate
Federal banking agencies to tailor or adjust the
supplementary leverage ratio or any other leverage ratio for
any company that is not a custodial bank.
SEC. 403. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 18 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828) is amended--
(1) by moving subsection (z) so that it appears after
subsection (y); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(aa) Treatment of Certain Municipal Obligations.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `investment grade', with respect to an
obligation, has the meaning given the term in section 1.2 of
title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
thereto;
``(B) the term `liquid and readily-marketable' has the
meaning given the term in section 249.3 of title 12, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto; and
``(C) the term `municipal obligation' means an obligation
of--
``(i) a State or any political subdivision thereof; or
``(ii) any agency or instrumentality of a State or any
political subdivision thereof.
``(2) Municipal obligations.--For purposes of the final
rule entitled `Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk
Measurement Standards' (79 Fed. Reg. 61439 (October 10,
2014)), the final rule entitled `Liquidity Coverage Ratio:
Treatment of U.S. Municipal Securities as High-Quality Liquid
Assets' (81 Fed. Reg. 21223 (April 11, 2016)), and any other
regulation that incorporates a definition of the term `high-
quality liquid asset' or another substantially similar term,
the appropriate Federal banking agencies shall treat a
municipal obligation as a high-quality liquid asset that is a
level 2B liquid asset if that obligation is, as of the date
of calculation--
``(A) liquid and readily-marketable; and
``(B) investment grade.''.
(b) Amendment to Liquidity Coverage Ratio Regulations.--Not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Comptroller
of the Currency shall amend the final rule entitled
``Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement
Standards'' (79 Fed. Reg. 61439 (October 10, 2014)) and the
final rule entitled ``Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Treatment of
U.S. Municipal Securities as High-Quality Liquid Assets'' (81
Fed. Reg. 21223 (April 11, 2016)) to implement the amendments
made by this section.
TITLE V--ENCOURAGING CAPITAL FORMATION
SEC. 501. NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE REGULATORY PARITY.
Section 18(b)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77r(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A);
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by inserting ``a security designated as qualified for
trading in the national market system pursuant to section
11A(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78k-1(a)(2)) that is'' before ``listed''; and
(B) by striking ``that has listing standards that the
Commission determines by rule (on its own initiative or on
the basis of a petition) are substantially similar to the
listing standards applicable to securities described in
subparagraph (A)'';
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or (B)''; and
(4) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
SEC. 502. SEC STUDY ON ALGORITHMIC TRADING.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the staff of the Securities and
Exchange Commission shall submit to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report
on the risks and benefits of algorithmic trading in capital
markets in the United States.
(b) Matters Required To Be Included.--The matters covered
by the report required by subsection (a) shall include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the effect of algorithmic trading in
equity and debt markets in the United States on the provision
of liquidity in stressed and normal market conditions.
(2) An assessment of the benefits and risks to equity and
debt markets in the United States by algorithmic trading.
(3) An analysis of whether the activity of algorithmic
trading and entities that engage in algorithmic trading are
subject to appropriate Federal supervision and regulation.
(4) A recommendation of whether--
(A) based on the analysis described in paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3), any changes should be made to regulations; and
(B) the Securities and Exchange Commission needs additional
legal authorities or resources to effect the changes
described in subparagraph (A).
SEC. 503. ANNUAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT-BUSINESS FORUM ON
CAPITAL FORMATION.
Section 503 of the Small Business Investment Incentive Act
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 80c-1) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) The Commission shall--
``(1) review the findings and recommendations of the forum;
and
``(2) each time the forum submits a finding or
recommendation to the Commission, promptly issue a public
statement--
``(A) assessing the finding or recommendation of the forum;
and
``(B) disclosing the action, if any, the Commission intends
to take with respect to the finding or recommendation.''.
SEC. 504. SUPPORTING AMERICA'S INNOVATORS.
Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15
U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``(or, in the case of a qualifying venture capital fund, 250
persons)'' after ``one hundred persons''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C)(i) The term `qualifying venture capital fund' means a
venture capital fund that has not more than $10,000,000 in
aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed
capital, with such dollar amount to be indexed for inflation
once every 5 years by the Commission, beginning from a
measurement made by the Commission on a date selected by the
Commission, rounded to the nearest $1,000,000.
``(ii) The term `venture capital fund' has the meaning
given the term in section 275.203(l)-1 of title 17, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.''.
SEC. 505. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OVERPAYMENT
CREDIT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Commission'' means the Securities and
Exchange Commission;
[[Page S1564]]
(2) the term ``national securities association'' means an
association that is registered under section 15A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3); and
(3) the term ``national securities exchange'' means an
exchange that is registered as a national securities exchange
under section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78f).
(b) Credit for Overpayment of Fees.--Notwithstanding
section 31(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78ee(j)), and subject to subsection (c) of this
section, if a national securities exchange or a national
securities association has paid fees and assessments to the
Commission in an amount that is more than the amount that the
exchange or association was required to pay under section 31
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee) and,
not later than 10 years after the date of such payment, the
exchange or association informs the Commission about the
payment of such excess amount, the Commission shall offset
future fees and assessments due by that exchange or
association in an amount that is equal to the difference
between the amount that the exchange or association paid and
the amount that the exchange or association was required to
pay under such section 31.
(c) Applicability.--Subsection (b) shall apply only to fees
and assessments that a national securities exchange or a
national securities association was required to pay to the
Commission before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 506. U.S. TERRITORIES INVESTOR PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--Section 6(a) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-6(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as
paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively.
(b) Effective Date and Safe Harbor.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Safe harbor.--With respect to a company that is exempt
under section 6(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a-6(a)(1)) on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act, the amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 3 years after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(3) Extension of safe harbor.--The Securities and Exchange
Commission, by rule or regulation upon its own motion, or by
order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally,
under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15
U.S.C. 80a-6(c)), further delay the effective date for a
company described in paragraph (2) for a maximum of 3 years
following the initial 3-year period if, before the end of the
initial 3-year period, the Commission determines that such a
rule, regulation, motion, or order is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of
investors.
SEC. 507. ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP.
Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall revise
section 230.701(e) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations,
so as to increase from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 the
aggregate sales price or amount of securities sold during any
consecutive 12-month period in excess of which the issuer is
required under such section to deliver an additional
disclosure to investors. The Commission shall index for
inflation such aggregate sales price or amount every 5 years
to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
rounding to the nearest $1,000,000.
SEC. 508. IMPROVING ACCESS TO CAPITAL.
The Securities and Exchange Commission shall amend--
(1) section 230.251 of title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, to remove the requirement that the issuer not be
subject to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) immediately before the
offering; and
(2) section 230.257 of title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, with respect to an offering described in section
230.251(a)(2) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, to
deem any issuer that is subject to section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as having met the periodic
and current reporting requirements of section 230.257 of
title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, if such issuer meets
the reporting requirements of section 13 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
SEC. 509. PARITY FOR CLOSED-END COMPANIES REGARDING OFFERING
AND PROXY RULES.
(a) Revision to Rules.--Not later than the end of the 1-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
the Securities and Exchange Commission shall propose and, not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Securities and Exchange Commission shall finalize any
rules, as appropriate, to allow any closed-end company, as
defined in section 5(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-5), that is registered as an investment
company under such Act, and is listed on a national
securities exchange or that makes periodic repurchase offers
pursuant to section 270.23c-3 of title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, to use the securities offering and proxy rules,
subject to conditions the Commission determines appropriate,
that are available to other issuers that are required to file
reports under section 13 or section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m; 78o(d)). Any action that
the Commission takes pursuant to this subsection shall
consider the availability of information to investors,
including what disclosures constitute adequate information to
be designated as a ``well-known seasoned issuer''.
(b) Treatment if Revisions Not Completed in a Timely
Manner.--If the Commission fails to complete the revisions
required by subsection (a) by the time required by such
subsection, any registered closed-end company that is listed
on a national securities exchange or that makes periodic
repurchase offers pursuant to section 270.23c-3 of title 17,
Code of Federal Regulations, shall be deemed to be an
eligible issuer under the final rule of the Commission titled
``Securities Offering Reform'' (70 Fed. Reg. 44722; published
August 3, 2005).
(c) Rules of Construction.--
(1) No effect on rule 482.--Nothing in this section or the
amendments made by this section shall be construed to impair
or limit in any way a registered closed-end company from
using section 230.482 of title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, to distribute sales material.
(2) References.--Any reference in this section to a section
of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or to any form or
schedule means such rule, section, form, or schedule, or any
successor to any such rule, section, form, or schedule.
TITLE VI--PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENT BORROWERS
SEC. 601. PROTECTIONS IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OR BANKRUPTCY.
(a) In General.--Section 140 of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1650) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as
paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(1) the term `cosigner'--
``(A) means any individual who is liable for the obligation
of another without compensation, regardless of how designated
in the contract or instrument with respect to that
obligation, other than an obligation under a private
education loan extended to consolidate a consumer's pre-
existing private education loans;
``(B) includes any person the signature of which is
requested as condition to grant credit or to forbear on
collection; and
``(C) does not include a spouse of an individual described
in subparagraph (A), the signature of whom is needed to
perfect the security interest in a loan.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Additional Protections Relating to Borrower or
Cosigner of a Private Education Loan.--
``(1) Prohibition on automatic default in case of death or
bankruptcy of non-student obligor.--With respect to a private
education loan involving a student obligor and 1 or more
cosigners, the creditor shall not declare a default or
accelerate the debt against the student obligor on the sole
basis of a bankruptcy or death of a cosigner.
``(2) Cosigner release in case of death of borrower.--
``(A) Release of cosigner.--The holder of a private
education loan, when notified of the death of a student
obligor, shall release within a reasonable timeframe any
cosigner from the obligations of the cosigner under the
private education loan.
``(B) Notification of release.--A holder or servicer of a
private education loan, as applicable, shall within a
reasonable time-frame notify any cosigners for the private
education loan if a cosigner is released from the obligations
of the cosigner for the private education loan under this
paragraph.
``(C) Designation of individual to act on behalf of the
borrower.--Any lender that extends a private education loan
shall provide the student obligor an option to designate an
individual to have the legal authority to act on behalf of
the student obligor with respect to the private education
loan in the event of the death of the student obligor.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall only apply to private education loan agreements entered
into on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 602. REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE EDUCATION LOANS.
(a) In General.--Section 623(a)(1) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(1)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(E) Rehabilitation of private education loans.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, a consumer may request a financial institution
to remove from a consumer report a reported default regarding
a private education loan, and such information shall not be
considered inaccurate, if--
``(I) the financial institution chooses to offer a loan
rehabilitation program which includes, without limitation, a
requirement of the consumer to make consecutive on-time
monthly payments in a number that demonstrates, in the
assessment of the financial institution offering the loan
rehabilitation program, a renewed ability and willingness to
repay the loan; and
[[Page S1565]]
``(II) the requirements of the loan rehabilitation program
described in subclause (I) are successfully met.
``(ii) Banking agencies.--
``(I) In general.--If a financial institution is supervised
by a Federal banking agency, the financial institution shall
seek written approval concerning the terms and conditions of
the loan rehabilitation program described in clause (i) from
the appropriate Federal banking agency.
``(II) Feedback.--An appropriate Federal banking agency
shall provide feedback to a financial institution within 120
days of a request for approval under subclause (I).
``(iii) Limitation.--
``(I) In general.--A consumer may obtain the benefits
available under this subsection with respect to
rehabilitating a loan only 1 time per loan.
``(II) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph
may be construed to require a financial institution to offer
a loan rehabilitation program or to remove any reported
default from a consumer report as a consideration of a loan
rehabilitation program, except as described in clause (i).
``(iv) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `appropriate Federal banking agency' has the
meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and
``(II) the term `private education loan' has the meaning
given the term in section 140(a) of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1650(a)).''.
(b) GAO Study.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study, in consultation with the appropriate
Federal banking agencies, regarding--
(A) the implementation of subparagraph (E) of section
623(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-
2(a)(1)) (referred to in this paragraph as ``the
provision''), as added by subsection (a);
(B) the estimated operational, compliance, and reporting
costs associated with the requirements of the provision;
(C) the effects of the requirements of the provision on the
accuracy of credit reporting;
(D) the risks to safety and soundness, if any, created by
the loan rehabilitation programs described in the provision;
and
(E) a review of the effectiveness and impact on the credit
of participants in any loan rehabilitation programs described
in the provision and whether such programs improved the
ability of participants in the programs to access credit
products.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report that contains all
findings and determinations made in conducting the study
required under paragraph (1).
SEC. 603. BEST PRACTICES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCIAL
LITERACY.
Section 514(a) of the Financial Literacy and Education
Improvement Act (20 U.S.C. 9703(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Best practices for teaching financial literacy.--
``(A) In general.--After soliciting public comments and
consulting with and receiving input from relevant parties,
including a diverse set of institutions of higher education
and other parties, the Commission shall, by not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, establish
best practices for institutions of higher education regarding
methods to--
``(i) teach financial literacy skills; and
``(ii) provide useful and necessary information to assist
students at institutions of higher education when making
financial decisions related to student borrowing.
``(B) Best practices.--The best practices described in
subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
``(i) Methods to ensure that each student has a clear sense
of the student's total borrowing obligations, including
monthly payments, and repayment options.
``(ii) The most effective ways to engage students in
financial literacy education, including frequency and timing
of communication with students.
``(iii) Information on how to target different student
populations, including part-time students, first-time
students, and other nontraditional students.
``(iv) Ways to clearly communicate the importance of
graduating on a student's ability to repay student loans.
``(C) Maintenance of best practices.--The Commission shall
maintain and periodically update the best practices
information required under this paragraph and make the best
practices available to the public.
``(D) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to require an institution of higher
education to adopt the best practices required under this
paragraph.''.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
amendment No. 2151, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 2151, as modified, to Calendar No. 287, S. 2155, a bill
to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory
relief, and enhance consumer protections, and for other
purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Ron Johnson,
John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Mike Crapo,
Deb Fischer, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Flake, John Kennedy, Johnny Isakson, James Lankford,
Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
287, S. 2155, a bill to promote economic growth, provide
tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Ron Johnson,
John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, Steve Daines, Mike Crapo,
Deb Fischer, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Flake, John Kennedy, Johnny Isakson, James Lankford,
Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn.
____________________