[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 11, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2430-S2441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 
   COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY RELATING TO ``NATIONAL BANKS AND FEDERAL 
                   SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS AS LENDERS''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res 15) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
     Comptroller of Currency relating to ``National Banks and 
     Federal Savings Associations as Lenders''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of 5 USC 802, there will 
now be up to 10 hours of debate equally divided.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I will be back a little later to 
debate the resolution.
  For the information of my colleagues, we expect a vote on passage of 
the joint resolution of disapproval around 5:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 15.
  This is a misguided resolution. It would overturn an important 
banking

[[Page S2431]]

resolution, the OCC's true lender rule. That is a rule that helps give 
consumers more access to credit.
  Overturning the true lender rule is a bad idea. It would reduce 
access to credit for consumers, especially those who have the most 
difficulty obtaining credit. It would stifle innovation, and it would 
inhibit the functioning of our markets, our Nation's banking and credit 
markets.
  Let me explain why preserving this rule is so important. In the last 
decade, we have seen financial technology companies, often referred to 
as fintechs, use technology to revolutionize financial services.
  Community and midsized banks that often lack the resources to develop 
banking technology in-house are partnering with these fintechs to 
compete more effectively and to offer their customers terrific services 
at ever-better prices. That is what these partnerships do. They help 
consumers because they increase competition in lending markets, they 
lower the price of financial products, they improve credit options, and 
they expand consumer choice.
  Unfortunately, a patchwork of different legal tests in different 
courts had made it difficult to predict whether the bank or the fintech 
partner, when they have teamed up, would be considered legally 
responsible for a given loan they would make together. So last year, 
the OCC issued its true lender rule to provide the needed regulatory 
clarity. The rule--a simple version of this is, it simply holds that a 
national bank will be responsible for a loan if it is named in the loan 
agreement or if it funds the loan, which banks often do when they team 
up with fintechs in these ways.
  Some of our Democratic colleagues have claimed that the rule, the 
true lender rule, allows unaccountable ``rent-a-charter'' arrangements, 
as they call them, but in fact, the true lender rule prevents the rent-
a-charter scheme, and it does so because it ensures that the national 
banks are accountable for the loans they issue through these lending 
partnerships, and it requires the OCC to supervise those loans for 
compliance with consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws.
  Other colleagues have expressed concerns that the rule will ``trap'' 
consumers in arrangements with high interest rates and a principal 
balance that can never be paid back, but actually that is not possible 
with these OCC-chartered banks, which are the only ones affected by 
this rule. That is because a bank is required under the OCC resolution 
to assess a borrower's ability to repay before making the loan. If a 
bank is systemically approving loans by this fintech partnership to 
consumers who can't repay the debt, they will face serious consequences 
from their regulator, and that is a lot more protection than what would 
otherwise exist for consumers.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues claim that the true lender law 
fundamentally changes existing laws around interest rates. In fact, it 
preserves existing law. For over four decades, Federal law has allowed 
banks to essentially export the State law governing interest rates from 
the home State where the bank is based. So this allows the bank to 
comply with 1 law of the bank's home State rather than have to try to 
comply with 50 different laws of the 50 States in which its customers 
may reside. Having this single standard allows for a competitive 
national credit market.
  The true lender rule simply allows fintechs that partner with banks 
to get the same treatment. It is really not very different from what 
happens today with credit cards. And may I remind everyone, credit 
cards can often have high interest rates.
  So if you believe that bank-fintech providers shouldn't be able to 
``export'' interest rates from the State in which the bank is 
headquartered, then I suppose you ought to be in favor of eliminating 
credit cards for all Americans.
  Well, that would be a terrible policy. It would be a bad policy to 
get rid of the true lender rule as well. Now, I have heard the argument 
that the true lender rule somehow harms low-income consumers. In fact, 
the true lender rule benefits low-income consumers most by preserving 
their access to well-regulated, bank-issued credit.
  Absent the rule, uncertainty about which partner, whether it is the 
bank or the fintech company, is the true lender means there would be 
uncertainty about what laws to apply to the transaction and whether or 
not the loan would be considered valid. Well, without the rule, without 
that certainty, the secondary market for these loans would be 
disrupted, and, again, that disproportionately harms lower income 
borrowers.
  Why is that? Well, it is because banks frequently sell these loans 
after they are made so that they free up the capital to make the next 
loan. Banks can issue far fewer loans if they can't reliably sell the 
ones that they have into the secondary market. Uncertainty, as we would 
have in the absence of the true lender rule, diminishes their ability 
to sell into the secondary market, and that means fewer loans are going 
to get booked altogether. Those that are are going to be more 
expensive, and they will be limited to people of higher credit ratings.
  And this isn't just my opinion. Forty-seven leading financial 
economists from Harvard, Stanford, and other leading universities made 
exactly these points in an amicus brief supporting the existing rule.
  And we have empirical proof. Studies show that after a 2015 court 
ruling created uncertainty about the ability to export interest rates 
to New York, it became significantly harder for higher risk borrowers 
to get loans in New York.
  This is not surprising. This is exactly what you would expect. This 
is what will happen nationally if this CRA is successful in repealing 
the true lender rule.
  Now, some of my colleagues want to overturn the true lender rule 
because doing so would subject more loans to State interest rate caps, 
they say. But, in fact, the more likely effect is that the loans will 
just never get made in the first place, and that is terrible for the 
low-income consumer for whom that loan is the best available option.
  The true lender rule preserves access to well-regulated, bank-offered 
credit.
  At end of the day, we need to remember, if the CRA is successful and 
the true lender rule is repealed, demand for credit won't disappear. 
The need for credit doesn't go away because we get rid of a good rule. 
You simply make it harder for people who need loans to get them, and 
you will drive consumers to unregulated alternatives.
  Voting in favor of the CRA, which would kill this rule, is also a 
direct assault on fintech. It will make it harder for Congress to 
legislate in this area. It will make it harder for regulators to issue 
guidance and rules to promote the healthy competition that fintechs 
represent. Courts will see this as Congress buying into this completely 
false notion that fintechs are somehow inherently ``predatory''--they 
are not--and it will scare away State legislators from promoting 
fintech.
  If you believe financial innovation and competition are good things 
for consumers, as I do, then you should oppose this CRA.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against S.J. Res. 15.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                     ALS Caucus and Awareness Month

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, today I am proud to join my colleague 
Senator Coons in relaunching the bipartisan Senate ALS Caucus.
  Currently, there are no effective treatments or cures available to 
stop or slow the disease, and we still do not know what really causes 
ALS.
  More than 5,000 Americans are diagnosed each year. Yet there is no 
ALS survivor community. Individuals diagnosed with ALS and their loved 
ones rely on their elected officials to advocate on their behalf.
  That is why the mission of the Senate ALS Caucus is to raise 
awareness about the difficulties faced by ALS patients and their 
families and to advance policies that improve their quality of life to 
advocate for meaningful research.
  May also marks ALS Awareness Month. Last Congress, Senator Coons and 
I introduced and passed a resolution to designate May 2020 as ALS 
Awareness Month. This effort, like the ALS Caucus, will raise awareness 
about the impact of ALS on those who are diagnosed, their loved ones, 
and their caregivers.

[[Page S2432]]

  I look forward to reintroducing again here in May 2021 the awareness 
month for ALS, and I hope my colleagues will help to pass this 
resolution again this year.
  There is more to be done, though, in really battling ALS. Promising 
therapies that have demonstrated clinical safety and efficacy are on 
the horizon for those with ALS. Failure to approve those promising 
treatments means the difference between life and premature death for 
these patients, and, sadly, the paradigm of the past has been to not be 
erring on the side, when there is a promising treatment, to push it 
through the system. Sadly, it has been indicative of what happens often 
in this place, and that is that you belabor it, you stretch it out, 
and, in this case, it has a much different consequence
  Patients with ALS have been very clear that they are willing to take 
a higher degree of risk to have access to these treatments at an 
earlier point in time.
  In September 2019, the FDA issued new guidance on developing drugs 
for ALS, which touted regulatory flexibility when applying the standard 
of safety and efficacy to drugs or diseases with serious, unmet medical 
needs. FDA guidance has been an empty promise, and patients with ALS 
lack flexible regulatory pathways to promising treatments as a result.
  Indicative, in a way, of what I mentioned earlier, where we seem to 
always be aware of those kinds of issues, we tell the Agencies that 
might be involved, and then there is that natural tendency toward 
inertia.
  For example, Amylyx, a pharmaceutical company focused on developing 
ALS treatments, announced clinical trial results of a promising 
treatment that slowed the progression of the disease and increased 
survival by 6 months. It may not seem like a long time, but when you 
take into consideration from the point of diagnosis to the point of 
dying from ALS, that is a lot of time, and the benefit of the doubt, 
when you have a promising clinical trial, needs to be given to the 
patient so that they have some hope.
  Europeans and Canadians have put a dynamic into place that would be 
quicker footed than our own FDA's. We need to take that as some 
guidance.
  Unfortunately, the FDA has expressed the need for additional clinical 
trials before allowing patients to access these drugs in the United 
States. This means Americans with ALS will not receive access when they 
can see others in Canada and Europe being able to.
  We need to get with it, and when you have the condition of no 
effective treatment and it is working in other places, we need to give 
the benefit of the doubt.
  It is failing to use its flexibility, and we have just seen--and I 
witnessed, all of us did, with the coronavirus--FDA, CDC squabbling out 
of the gate about what to do with coronavirus.
  Thank goodness we did do something that was going to change that 
dynamic. We would still be wrestling over a vaccine if it had been 
business as usual.
  So it is clear here, for even a better reason, that nothing is out 
there that is working, promising things on the horizon. We need to do 
better. That is why I will be reintroducing the Promising Pathway Act, 
the legislative solution to give those struggling with life-threatening 
illnesses, like ALS, a fighting chance of access to timely, meaningful 
treatments, especially when they are overwhelmingly wanting it, willing 
to take the risk.
  The Promising Pathway Act would require the FDA--require the FDA--to 
establish a rolling, realtime priority review to evaluate the progress 
and not make it subjective, the way it is now, to where they can do 
what they have been doing, and that is dragging their feet.
  Under this pathway, provisional approval would be granted by the FDA 
to drugs demonstrating substantial evidence of safety and relevant 
evidence of positive therapeutic outcomes, like those demonstrated in 
Amylyx's clinical trials.
  It is right here. We just need to do it, and you are going to be 
doing what ALS patients would prefer.
  This also encourages further research and clinical trials in not only 
ALS, but this, of course, should apply to other diseases that are 
similar where we are still wrestling, in clinical trials, with the 
ability to get these across the finish line. But it does strengthen the 
FDA's postmarket surveillance, which is another important thing for 
patient safety, and grants access to promising treatments covered by 
insurance.
  To my colleagues, it is time to roll up our sleeves and to work to 
advance policies that improve the quality of ALS patients. I encourage 
every Member to lean in on this, to be a part of it, so that we can 
help people that have no other hope.
  It is up to us to speak for those who can no longer speak, to stand 
up for those who can no longer stand.
  I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are 
returning members of the ALS Caucus, and I welcome those who are new to 
the caucus this Congress.
  As the ALS Caucus continues to grow its membership, our commitment to 
the mission of the ALS Caucus and the ALS community is strengthened 
along the way.
  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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is National Police Week, and 
yesterday I spoke about the importance of police in our activities, our 
daily life. I come to the floor now to address my colleagues about a 
piece of legislation I am putting in.
  I recently reintroduced the Protecting America's First Responders 
Act, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by 11 of my colleagues. This bill 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the last Congress.
  In this new Congress, it is time that we once again turn our 
attention to the public service officers across our Nation who 
steadfastly serve and protect fellow Americans. These great men and 
women fulfill some of our most vital and irreplaceable needs. Their 
duties affect every part of our communities. We have seen that 
clearly--very clearly--over the past year as their services have been 
instrumental in keeping our communities safe during the pandemic.
  Our firefighters dedicate themselves to braving harrowing fires. Our 
police officers rush headlong into danger to protect the innocent. 
Emergency first responders dutifully come to the aid of the injured, no 
matter the threat. Despite these vast responsibilities, their purpose 
is very much the same: to serve and protect their communities.
  We know this call to service comes with great risk. We, in Congress, 
will forever be indebted to the Capitol Police officers who suffered 
substantial injuries and even gave their lives on these very grounds.
  There is no way for us to truly comprehend or repay the sacrifices 
made by these officers and their loved ones left behind. Yet, knowing 
this, our public safety officers willingly accept the responsibilities 
of injury and, if need be, lay down their lives to fulfill their duties 
and their oaths.
  We owe our firefighters, law enforcement, and all of our first 
responders a great deal, and we don't say thank you enough. They don't 
hesitate to take action when we need them to, and we must be equally 
steadfast in coming to their aid by ensuring that those officers, 
disabled or killed--killed in the line of duty--receive what they are 
due.
  They must receive what we, in Congress, first promised now four and a 
half decades ago through the law that is called the Public Safety 
Officers' Benefit Program. So the original PSOB Program was created in 
1976. Yet, since that time, it has been plagued with unclear and out-
of-date regulations, forcing families of our fallen heroes to 
continually suffer through technical interpretations and drawn-out 
claim processes. This cannot continue.
  This bill that 11 of us have introduced, the Protecting America's 
First Responders Act, ensures that disability claims are consistent 
with Congress's original intent for the PSOB Program. It received wide 
bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate in the last Congress. 
Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House.

[[Page S2433]]

  Over the last year, I worked closely with Congressman Pascrell to 
alleviate opposition and work through amendments that can pass the 
House. I am confident that with these changes, it will reach the 
President's desk very quickly.
  The 117th Congress has a fresh opportunity to make this bill law, and 
there are many waiting for us to do exactly that. I introduce this bill 
with strong support from organizations, including the Fraternal Order 
of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the 
National Association of Police Organizations. I urge my colleagues to, 
once again, vote for the Protecting America's First Responders Act, 
thereby fulfilling the original promise to honor those whose lives were 
forever altered by their service


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, on another subject, I come to the floor probably to 
explain to my colleagues something I have done on three or four 
different occasions, and nobody ever seems to get it right. So I am 
back here again trying to explain something so we don't have to deal 
with it again.
  So here we go again. While I was traveling throughout Iowa meeting 
with constituents, I kept my eyes on news reporting out of Washington, 
DC. I have seen a lot of bad reporting in my time. The events that 
occurred starting on April 30 are there at the top of bad reporting.
  The Washington Post, the New York Times, and NBC all had to retract 
their reporting about Russian disinformation warnings given to Rudy 
Giuliani. I am not here to talk about Rudy Giuliani. I am talking about 
how this report affects me and Senator Johnson because, unfortunately, 
in the Washington Post article, my and Senator Johnson's investigations 
into the Biden family's financial dealings was tethered, once again, to 
Russian disinformation attempts, and that tethering is what I have been 
here on the floor of the Senate, over the last maybe more than a year 
now, trying to explain that that just is a big hoax.
  The report was based on anonymous current and former U.S. officials. 
Apparently, the Washington Post still hasn't figured out how to read a 
Senate report. My staff also spent many hours talking with the Post the 
day before the story ran in order to help them understand. And I 
presume they called us; we didn't call them.
  I am going to quote from my staff's emailing them the following, 
which, in the end, the Post completely ignored in their article. So 
here is a long email:

       Sen. Grassley's report with Sen. Johnson relied on Obama-
     era U.S. government records and information from a Democrat-
     aligned U.S. lobby shop, which employed Telizhenko while 
     representing the corrupt Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

  The email goes on:

       Sen. Grassley never received a defensive briefing related 
     to his oversight of the Biden family's foreign business 
     ventures. Discussions with the FBI and the Intelligence 
     Community were initiated by requests from Democrats, as is 
     detailed in Section Ten of the report.
       The FBI and members of the Intelligence Community indicated 
     last year that there was no reason for the committee's 
     investigation to be halted, even with knowledge of 
     Telizhenko's limited involvement (see report page 59).

  This is what the email says to the Post. Continuing to read from my 
staff's email to them:

       The report and its underlying transcripts further reveal 
     that Telizhenko had deep and longstanding relationships with 
     Obama State Department officials, National Security Council 
     staff and left-wing lobbyists. The transcripts also 
     illustrate that material created by Derkach was introduced by 
     Democrats, not Republicans, and it was quickly rejected by an 
     expert witness as disinformation.

  And then in parenthesis, it says: ``([S]ee Minority Exhibit J and 
George Kent's response to Minority staff regarding that exhibit).''
  Continuing to report from the email to the Post:

       Following a classified letter authored by Democratic 
     leadership, portions of which were later leaked and 
     reportedly referenced Derkach, Democrats again sought an FBI 
     and Intelligence Community briefing, which was provided in 
     August of 2020. At that briefing, the FBI stated that it's 
     not attempting to--

  And these are the words that the FBI used--

     ``quash, curtail, or interfere'' in the investigation in any 
     way.

  And then in parenthesis it says: ``([S]ee report, page 59).''

       That's not the sort of direction provided at defensive 
     briefings.

  This is what my staff's email says to the Post.

       Obviously, we didn't rely on any of this for the report's 
     findings on Hunter Biden's and James Biden's extensive 
     financial entanglements with questionable foreign nationals, 
     including some connected to the communist Chinese government. 
     Subsequent to the report, the public has also learned that 
     Hunter Biden is under criminal investigation relating to his 
     financial entanglements.
       Given Telizheko's longstanding ties to Blue Star Strategies 
     and Obama administration officials, are you similarly asking 
     them whether they played into some Russian-pushed narrative?

  I am going to go back because that question needs to be repeated. It 
is not repeated in the email I am reading to you.

       Given Telizheko's longstanding ties to Blue Star Strategies 
     and Obama administration officials, are you--

  Meaning the Post--

     similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian-
     pushed narrative?
       Given that Democrats introduced Derkach material, are you 
     similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian-
     pushed narrative?

  Now, that is the end of the quote, and I think those last two 
questions indicate--because, obviously, the newspaper article doesn't 
say that they asked these questions that I repeated one twice and then 
the other question. They aren't really interested in getting to the 
bottom of this.
  Now, after all this information and long phone conversations, the 
Washington Post opted for unnamed sources rather than on-the-record 
comments from my staff. So they had an opportunity to quote Grassley 
and explain all this stuff, and what do they do? They used an anonymous 
source. Maybe the Post should work on putting more investigation into 
so-called investigative reporting instead of focusing on false Russian 
disinformation narratives; for example, maybe spend some time 
investigating the Biden family's ties to Chinese nationals connected to 
the Communist regime's military and intelligence services.

  I have addressed these Russian disinformation issues at length in my 
committee report with Senator Johnson, as well as right here on the 
floor of the Senate three or four times over the course of many months, 
maybe stretching into more than a year. I am going to do this again 
even though I have better things to do. If you want every detail, read 
section 10 in our September 23, 2020, report.
  On July 13, 2020, then-Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, 
Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff sent a letter with a 
classified attachment to the FBI to express a purported belief that 
Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign. The 
classified attachment included unclassified elements that attempted and 
failed to tie our work to Andrii Derkach, a Russian agent. This 
document falsely accused us of potentially receiving material from 
Derkach. It was pure speculative nonsense that the liberal media ran 
with as what they would call or want you to believe was the truth. Do 
you know what it was? It was garbage. Those unclassified elements were 
leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us of using 
Russian disinformation.
  Then, during the course of our investigation, we ran a transcribed 
interview of George Kent. Before that interview, the Democrats acquired 
Derkach's materials. During that interview, they asked the witness 
about it. He stated:

       What you're asking me to interpret is a master chart of 
     disinformation and malign influence.

  At that interview, the Democrats introduced known disinformation into 
the investigative record as an exhibit. Now, more precisely, the 
Democrats relied upon and disseminated known disinformation from a 
foreign source who the intelligence community warned was actively 
seeking to influence U.S. politics.
  But there is yet more. On July 16, then-Ranking Member Wyden and 
Senator Peters wrote a letter to me and Senator Johnson asking for a 
briefing from the intelligence community on matters relating to our 
investigation.
  On July 28, 2020, Senator Johnson and I reminded those two Senators

[[Page S2434]]

that the FBI and relevant members of the intelligence community had 
already briefed the committee in March 2020 and assured us that there 
was no reason to discontinue the investigation we were involved in.
  In August 2020, subsequent to these Democrat-led letters, Senator 
Johnson and I had a briefing from the FBI on behalf of the intelligence 
community. However, in that briefing, the FBI discussed matters that 
were already known and completely irrelevant to the substance of our 
investigation. The FBI also made clear that it was not attempting to--
and these are the FBI's words--``quash, curtail, or interfere'' in the 
investigation in any way.
  Any talk about an FBI briefing warning us that our investigation into 
the Biden family's financial and business associations was connected to 
Russian disinformation is complete nonsense. No such briefing ever 
happened. Our investigation was based on Obama administration 
government records and records from a Democrat-aligned lobby shop, Blue 
Star Strategies. If those records amount to Russian disinformation, 
then that means the Obama administration dealt in disinformation every 
day, which brings me to the ultimate point I want to bring to attention 
today.
  The FBI assured me that the August 2020 briefing, which was a 
pointless briefing that shouldn't have happened, would remain 
confidential. That is what the FBI told us, that it would be 
confidential. However, I was concerned that the substance of this 
briefing or at least elements relating to it would leak, and I knew 
that once it did, the briefing would be misreported and used to paint 
our investigation in a false light. That is exactly what happened last 
week.
  Although the Washington Post failed, the Wall Street Journal got it 
right in its May 4 editorial titled ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have that editorial printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             [May 4, 2021]

                       The FBI's Dubious Briefing

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       Did the FBI set up two Members of Congress for political 
     attack under the guise of a ``defensive briefing''? It's 
     possible, and Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley are 
     rightly demanding answers.
       On Monday the Republicans sent a letter to FBI Director 
     Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Avril 
     Haines asking how the Washington Post came to know about an 
     FBI briefing to both Senators on Aug. 6, 2020. A Post story 
     last week used the info to smear Mr. Johnson and his report 
     on Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings, suggesting that 
     he'd ignored FBI warnings and thus may have been manipulated 
     by the Kremlin. The newspaper cited only anonymous ``current 
     and former U.S. officials.''
       In their letter the Senators note that the briefing came 
     after ``pressure from Democratic Leadership.'' In July 2020, 
     the Democratic Members of the Gang of Eight--senior Members 
     with access to intelligence secrets--had sent a letter and 
     classified addendum to Mr. Wray specifically citing the 
     Johnson-Grassley probe into Hunter Biden as reason for an 
     urgent briefing for Congress about foreign 
     ``disinformation.'' That news was then leaked, in what was an 
     obvious attempt to tar the work of the two Republicans.
       The two Senators became more concerned when the ensuing 
     briefing by the FBI turned out to be what they described as 
     ``not specific'' as well as ``unconnected to our 
     investigation.'' (Their report was based on U.S. government 
     documents.) They specifically expressed to the FBI during the 
     briefing their concerns that it would be ``subject to a 
     leak'' for partisan gain. Which is exactly what happened last 
     week, despite the FBI's promise to the Senators of 
     confidentiality.
       After the August briefing, Messrs. Johnson and Grassley 
     sent a letter demanding that Mr. Wray and the intelligence 
     community disclose the reason for it. They never received the 
     answer. In light of last week's leak, they are renewing their 
     demand to know who recommended the briefing, and the 
     intelligence that supposedly supported it.
       Whether the FBI was pressured, duped, or actively 
     political, the bureau has again landed in the center of a 
     partisan fight. Mr. Wray might ask how that keeps happening.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The editorial began this way:

       Did the FBI set up two Members of Congress for political 
     attack under the guise of a ``defensive briefing''? It's 
     possible, and Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley are 
     rightly demanding answers.

  On May 3, Senator Johnson and I wrote to FBI Director Christopher 
Wray and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, asking to meet 
with them to discuss the August 20 briefing. We need answers, and we 
need answers now. Why did the FBI and the intelligence community brief 
us? Who made that decision? At the briefing, the FBI didn't even show 
us what intelligence product formed the basis for the briefing.
  I will tell you this, even without seeing any paperwork, we were 
already aware of everything they talked about that very day, and it was 
unconnected to the substance of our investigation.
  I asked the FBI whether they had any new intelligence to share 
because we hadn't heard anything new, and they didn't give us a single 
new item. So, as far as I am concerned, the briefing was totally 
unnecessary.
  Based on the timeline of events, it appears the briefing was done 
because the Democrats wanted it done, which means it was a political 
decision.
  The Wall Street Journal ended its piece by saying this:

       Whether the FBI was pressured, duped, or actively 
     political, the bureau has again landed in the center of a 
     partisan fight. Mr. Wray might [want to] ask how that keeps 
     happening.

  That is exactly right. The FBI and the intelligence community have 
lots of explaining to do.
  We already know that under Comey, the FBI used intelligence briefings 
as surveillance operations against Trump and his team. Did the FBI and 
the intelligence community also misuse briefing processes against 
congressional Members? Only Director Wray and Director Haines can 
answer that question, and so far, they have failed to answer those 
questions. Their credibility and, more importantly, their 
professionalism are on the line.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                            Softwood Lumber

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we have seen across many sectors of our 
economy the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. It has 
dramatically shifted the supply and demand for lots of products in 
unexpected ways.
  I am on the floor today to speak about the price of lumber and the 
impact the soaring costs are having on homebuilders and on home buyers.
  Nationwide, construction for new homes is up 37 percent over the last 
year and up 87 percent in the Midwest region, where I come from. Rising 
demand for new home construction, as well as an upturn in do-it-
yourself home projects during the pandemic, have rapidly driven up the 
cost of lumber. As a result, since last April, overall lumber prices 
are up over 300 percent.
  Lumber and wood products account for roughly 15 percent of the 
construction costs for a single-family home. We all work to see that 
that single-family home is something that is available to Americans. It 
is the American dream. But lumber accounts for the second largest 
overall cost of building a new home, only behind the cost of the land 
the home sits on. These increases have resulted in a $36,000 increase 
in the price of a typical single-family home and a $13,000 increase in 
the market value of a multifamily unit.
  The reality is that record-high lumber prices are putting the 
American dream of home ownership out of reach for hundreds of thousands 
of potential home buyers and disproportionately harming middle- and 
low-income families across our Nation.
  At a time when residential homebuilding is booming, it is essential 
that homebuilders and consumers have access to the materials they need 
at competitive prices.
  Historically, Canada has been the largest foreign supplier of 
softwood lumber in the United States. These imports are vital to 
support the ongoing housing boom but have been declining. These imports 
have been declining over the past 4 years.
  In April 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced 
countervailing

[[Page S2435]]

duties averaging 20 percent on softwood lumber products from certain 
Canadian producers. In December of 2020, the average tariff was reduced 
to 9 percent. While a reduction in tariffs for some Canadian producers 
is a step in the right direction, the complete elimination of these 
tariffs is necessary to provide additional relief for rising lumber 
prices.
  At a recent Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee hearing, I raised this topic with U.S. Trade 
Representative Katherine Tai and urged her to engage with her Canadian 
counterpart to reach a long-term agreement on softwood lumber trade. It 
is American home buyers, not Canadian lumber producers, who end up 
paying the cost of these trade restrictions.
  In addition to working to resolve this trade dispute, we should also 
work to boost the domestic production of the types of lumber used in 
home construction. Additional lumber can and should be sustainably 
harvested from public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management. Adding to the existing lumber supply and 
ensuring that domestic sawmills are operating at full capacity will 
help soften lumber prices.
  It is important for Kansans to have the opportunity and economic 
means to own their own homes. Unfortunately, the current lumber prices 
are making that dream unattainable for way too many families.
  Resolving the longstanding trade dispute with Canada on softwood 
lumber and better managing our public lands to increase lumber 
production will both help alleviate the problems facing homebuilders 
and home buyers.
  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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 China

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, in December of 2019, as a new virus was 
emerging on the opposite side of the world, I spoke at the National 
Defense University, and the title of the speech I gave was called 
``American Industrial Policy and the Rise of China.''
  The reaction of many people to that at the time was skepticism--from 
Wall Street investors who, frankly, saw no problem with the status quo 
on China; from these think-tank experts who mocked my claim at the time 
that our country relied too much on China economically in our supply 
chain; and from tech giants in Silicon Valley obsessed with access to 
the Chinese marketplace.
  But the problem I pointed to at that time in that speech, almost 2 
years ago--a year and a half ago--was that for over a quarter century, 
our economic policies have been mostly about one thing: how American 
investors and companies can make money by doing business with China. In 
that vein, it didn't matter if making money meant allowing China to 
steal our intellectual property, it didn't matter if making money meant 
stable American jobs kept disappearing, and it didn't matter if making 
money meant investing in Chinese companies developing technologies to 
help defeat our country in a future war.
  Finally, Americans are waking up to what a mistake that was. It was a 
bipartisan consensus that was flawed.
  The 21st century will be defined by the relationship between China 
and the United States. Frankly, I believe that this is our last chance 
to make sure that it is a balanced relationship.
  What we do not have time for are China bills or a China bill that is 
a collection of half-measures and studies. Instead, an actually 
meaningful China bill is what we need. I believe most Members here want 
it, and I believe we can get to it in a bipartisan way. But, to do so, 
I think it has to have six things. If you want a meaningful bill on 
China, it must touch on six things.
  The first is like I said in December of 2019: We need to identify 
industries which are critical for our future, and we must spur 
investment in these key industries. We have to remember that we are not 
in a strategic competition with foreign Chinese companies. We are in a 
strategic competition with the world's largest and second wealthiest 
nation-state.
  There is no way to compete with China by relying only, solely on 
private investment, not while the Chinese Communist Party subsidizes 
and cheats to boost its favorite companies. From industrial corporate 
giants to small businesses that make up our supply chain, the private 
sector is the most important area of this competition. We can encourage 
them to step up, just like we did for semiconductors with the CHIPS 
Act.
  Frankly, the way we developed the vaccine with Operation Warp Speed 
is an example of a targeted industrial policy in which government 
partners with the private sector to solve a big problem. You can say 
what you want about America's response to COVID, but we have done 
vaccines better than anyone else in the world--not even close--and it 
is due to that partnership.
  But an essential part of our strategy has to be, as a result, to 
build a strong foundation through targeted and sustained Federal 
funding for American research and development. The bipartisan Endless 
Frontier Act is a nod in that direction. Right now, that bill makes the 
National Science Foundation the lead Agency in directing $100 billion 
in government investment. The problem is that is the same Agency that, 
time and again, has had the research we fund stolen by professors and 
graduate students who are on the payroll for China.
  DARPA and other advanced research Agencies within government have a 
much better record of protecting research and, I believe, would be a 
far better choice to administer these investments, instead.
  The second thing a real China bill must do is communicate that while 
we do not seek an armed confrontation with China, we will confront any 
military aggression, we will maintain our defense commitments with our 
allies, and we will win any conflict China starts.
  We must never do anything that leads Beijing to doubt our commitment 
to Taiwan, and we must never accept the Chinese Communist Party's 
illegitimate claims on the world's most important shipping lanes in the 
South and East China Seas. The Strategic Competition Act we recently 
passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee is largely silent on this 
topic, but Chairman Menendez has pledged to work with me to include my 
South China Sea and East China Sea Sanctions Act in any final bill that 
we take up here on the floor.
  The third thing a real China bill must do is fix broken international 
and domestic trade laws. The World Trade Organization is failing 
miserably, and it must be reformed. And China's flagrant intellectual 
property theft, industrial espionage, and massive subsidies to Chinese 
companies can no longer be ignored and they must be addressed. My Fair 
Trade with China Enforcement Act would help protect critical industries 
in America from Chinese influence and possession and recover the lost 
value of secrets and technologies that they have stolen.
  The fourth area of focus of any real China bill must be making sure 
China doesn't control our medicines and/or our medical technology and 
patient data. Last year, panic over masks and ventilators was a wake-up 
call for our medical dependence on Beijing.
  From blood thinners to acetaminophen, which is the ingredient in 
Tylenol, we have allowed China to dominate the pharmaceutical 
manufacturing market. It is dangerous leverage over America and 
Americans. We should be able to make medicines here. This will not only 
make us safer; it will create well-paying, stable jobs for American 
workers. My Medical Manufacturing, Economic Development, and 
Sustainability Act would do exactly that and should be included in any 
real China bill.
  As I said in September of 2019, we must immediately enact stricter 
guidelines to make sure that public funding never contributes to 
Chinese genomics efforts and beats them in that R&D race. If we allow 
China to dominate genetic data and that field of medicine, Americans 
will one day find themselves begging Chinese companies, and even the 
Chinese Communist Party, for access to future lifesaving treatments.
  The fifth area a real China bill must address is our capital markets. 
Our

[[Page S2436]]

stock market is the most open, liquid, and profitable in the world, and 
it is being used by the Chinese Communist Party to fund its military 
and to fund their companies. Any meaningful China bill must cut off the 
tap and prohibit American money from being invested in communist 
China's military companies.
  We need to start requiring more transparency from Wall Street when it 
comes to investing in China and Chinese Government-controlled 
companies. My American Financial Markets Integrity and Security Act 
needs to be part of the solution
  How can we claim to be dealing with Chinese manipulation of our 
capital markets if we don't ban Chinese companies exploiting our own 
stock market to hurt us? Beijing long ago figured out how to get rich 
and powerful Americans to use their influence in American politics.
  Allowing Wall Street and Big Finance to enrich themselves by hurting 
Americans may make a lot of money in the short term for those 
individuals, but it is hurting America in the long run. It is national 
economic suicide.
  The sixth area any real China bill must address is genocide. Today, 
in China, nationless corporations, cooperating with the Chinese 
Communist Party, force Uighur Muslims to make clothing and shoes and 
even solar panels. Sadly, without knowing it, you may have very well 
purchased a product made partially or entirely by slave labor in 
Xinjiang.
  These companies partnering with China are complicit in these crimes. 
The Chinese Communist Party's reduced labor costs mean increased 
profits for these corporations. While they lecture us about social 
justice in America, these companies are making billions off of slavery 
in China.
  My bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act has almost half the 
Senate as cosponsors. We must take it up and pass it out of the Foreign 
Relations Committee as soon as possible.
  Last year, we saw companies like Nike, Apple, Coca-Cola, and even the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbying against this bill. Well, soon we are 
going to find out what holds more power in our country: corporations 
making billions off genocide and slavery or our basic sense of right 
and wrong.
  The good news is that, today, we have finally awoken to the reality 
of how wrong the old consensus on China was. But we woke up almost too 
late. We don't have time for half-measures. We must address the 
dangerous growing imbalance between America and China comprehensively, 
decisively, and swiftly, or we will live to see a future in which the 
world's most powerful nation is a totalitarian, genocidal, communist 
dictatorship and our country is relegated to the role of a once-great 
nation in decline.
  No part of our lives will go unaffected in a world like that. We can 
see the shadows of it even today. American movies today are free to 
portray their own country here, the United States, as racist, as 
bigoted, anything they want, but they automatically self-censor their 
own movies to make sure they meet China's standards so they can show 
those films there.
  American corporations threaten States whose democratically elected 
leaders pass laws they object to. They have every right in our 
democracy to object, but they will fire American employees and ban 
messages that risk getting their corporation kicked out of the Chinese 
market.
  And American teenagers are already turning over valuable personal 
data to the Chinese Government on an hourly basis in exchange for the 
ability to watch what I will admit are clever videos on TikTok.
  Yet, this is nothing compared to the world that awaits if we do not 
take action, and on this the lessons of history could not be clearer.
  Athens emerged from the second Persian war a great power, but their 
greatness made them decadent and complacent. They thought nothing would 
ever change, that they could ignore important problems, that they could 
focus on the trivial. So when conflict finally came, initially they 
used their superior navy to attack Sparta and retreat behind the safety 
of the city's walls.
  That worked for a little while. Then a plague decimated the city, and 
more enemies of theirs sensed their weakness and joined the fight 
against them. Then Athens fell.
  Like Rome and Britain later, the end of Athens' golden age came as it 
always does for a great power. It doesn't come from the outside in; it 
always comes from the inside out.
  Now, from across the centuries, the lessons of history cry out for 
our attention. Our politics are broken. We fight over the trivial 
because we think the past is irrelevant, because we think our place in 
the world will never change, and because we think the future will 
always belong to us automatically. We hide behind our own version of 
the walls, two vast oceans, believing, ultimately, we are safe from 
everything outside.
  We should not repeat the errors of the great powers of the past. My 
friends, we don't have time for studies and strategy statements. We 
need big changes and decisive action. We need to prove that our 
democracy can work again, that our system of government can function, 
and that it can solve big problems in big ways.
  If we succeed, I truly believe a new American century lies ahead. If 
we fail, it is a century of humiliation that awaits us.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                              S.J. Res. 15

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I am on the floor to urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution that we 
will be voting on shortly. This is a resolution to protect all of our 
constituents against predatory lenders--people who lend others money at 
loan shark rates and often in deceptive language that can be very 
confusing to consumers until they get the phone call, and they are told 
they owe unaffordable amounts on loans.
  And States have been working very hard to protect consumers. In fact, 
45 States--States with Republican Governors and Democratic Governors, 
Republican attorneys general and Democratic attorneys general--45 
States and the District of Columbia have passed laws to protect their 
constituents, their consumers from these loan shark-type loans, from 
these predatory lending practices.
  But we have seen these predatory lenders find a way around these 
State efforts to protect their consumers. And the tactic they used has 
come to be known as ``rent-a-bank.'' And the way it works is that 
national banks can make loans into any State, even if they are not 
chartered in that State. And so what has happened is, some of these 
lenders then go to a national bank and essentially just borrow their 
name, buy the rights to their name and, using that mechanism, then can 
make loans into all 50 States, in violation of the State law 
protections against these usurious loans. That is what is happening 
now.
  Now, when this whole problem began to emerge, we saw the Federal 
Governor take action. In fact, the minute the OCC and the FDIC and 
State governments caught wind of this new trick in the loan shark 
playbook, they took action. In fact, under President George W. Bush, 
the OCC--the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency--called these 
``rent-a-bank'' schemes ``an abuse of the national bank charter.'' And 
President Bush's Comptroller of the Currency explained that the OCC was 
``greatly concerned with arrangements in which national banks 
essentially rent out their charters.''
  And that stance and that position was echoed by State legislatures--
again, legislatures from both parties, Governors from both parties who 
then worked to pass laws, State laws, to limit the amount that people 
could charge as interest rates on loans.
  In fact, just last year, in the State of Nebraska, voters passed a 
ballot initiative with more than 70 percent support to cap interest 
rates at 36 percent on consumer loans. That is the same cap we have in 
my State of Maryland and the same cap that more and more States are 
adopting across the country. So States are taking measures to protect 
their constituents, their consumers, against these end-runs around 
their laws designed to prohibit these predatory practices.
  But last October, in the middle of the pandemic, when many working 
families were plunged into economic uncertainty and turmoil, the former 
administration--the Trump administration--

[[Page S2437]]

gave these ``rent-a-bank'' schemes a free pass to exploit these 
loopholes again, to create an end-run around those State protections 
for their consumers.
  In the last administration--the Trump administration--the OCC 
unveiled what they called the true lender rule. Well, it is a nice-
sounding name, an innocent name, but the consequence of that is to 
unleash the full force of predatory lending on working families. And it 
reneges on and reverses decades of both State and Federal government 
policy to prevent this end-run on usury caps.
  What we have seen is predatory lenders move quickly into the space 
when the Trump administration opened the door to it. One online lender 
recently told its investors that it was going to get around 
California's new interest rate cap by making loans through ``bank 
sponsors that are not subject to the same proposed State level rate 
limitations.''
  So what you do is you go to a national bank, and you essentially rent 
their name. And by doing that, you create a loophole that allows you to 
avoid the State laws that have been put in place to protect against 
this kind of predatory lending. And we are seeing that now emerge like 
wildfire around the country.
  I do want to be clear, there are many innovative fintech 
partnerships. These are lenders who use the internet. There are many 
who are not exhibiting these kind of predatory behaviors. And we should 
craft a rule that allows legitimate lending consistent with State laws 
through those fintech practices.
  But the way this rule was written during the Trump administration, it 
opens the door to all the bad actors. It opens the door wide to the 
predatory lenders to exploit this loophole.
  And that is why we are on the floor today, because this resolution is 
designed to stop the predatory lending practices that were unleashed by 
the OCC rule. It is to shut the door on that Trump administration OCC 
rule that now has allowed predatory lenders to rush through it.
  And what we are seeing now are rates of 100 percent, 200 percent--
whatever they want. I mean, the sky is the limit. Some of these 
interest rates would make loan sharks blush.
  So we just saw, in fact, one OCC-regulated bank that has been helping 
a short-term lending company pilot an online ``rent-a-bank'' 
installment loan program that runs at 179-percent APR. And the OCC rule 
is being litigated in court right now to defend a $67,000 loan to a 
restaurant owner at a 268-percent APR rate that violates the State law 
where that restaurant is.
  So this is a perfect example of where a small restaurant owner took 
out a loan--$67,000--deceptively portrayed, only to discover that it 
was 268 percent APR. And when the restaurant owner says, ``Wait a 
minute, I thought the limit in our State was 36 percent,'' all of a 
sudden they discover that the Trump OCC opened the door to this end-run 
against their State law protections.
  That is why we have State attorneys general from red States and blue 
States, from Nebraska and North Carolina, who have called these ``rent-
a-bank'' schemes a ``sham'' and urged us to act. They wrote to us here 
in the Senate, saying:

       The most efficient course to prevent unrestrained abuse and 
     avert immediate and ongoing consumer harm would be for 
     Congress to invalidate the [True Lender] Rule pursuant to its 
     remedial oversight powers under the Congressional Review Act.

  That is what we will be voting on soon. North Carolina's attorney 
general, Josh Stein, just also said in a separate statement:

       We need every tool at our disposal to uphold state law and 
     stop [predatory lenders] from coming back into our state[s].

  I hope that we will act right now to stop what is a rush by many of 
these predatory lenders to exploit the opening created by the Trump 
administration's OCC. Then let's take a pause. Let's take time to craft 
a proper rule that allows legitimate lenders to make loans in ways that 
do not violate the State protections for the consumers and do not, at 
the end of the day, wreak havoc with families who get sucked into 
unsuspecting terms through deceptive practices. So I urge the U.S. 
Senate to vote to pass this resolution to protect consumers around the 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, if I could just actually say one more 
thing, this has been something that the Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs Committee has been working on. We held a number of hearings on 
this. And I do just want to thank my friend and colleague, the chairman 
of that committee, Senator Brown from Ohio, who has been a stalwart in 
protecting consumers. I don't know if he has been to the floor yet, but 
I just wanted to thank him and other members of the committee for their 
efforts and also thank the Biden administration, which just sent down a 
statement of administration support for overturning the OCC rule and 
for voting in favor of this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, when I joined the Senate Banking 
Committee last February, I pledged to fairly examine every issue that 
came before us, with an eye for detail and a fresh perspective--
promoting innovation, free markets, and our dual banking system.
  I support the policy goals of the true lender rule in promoting 
access to credit for underserved communities. I also recognize how 
vital it is to provide legal clarity to financial technology innovators 
during this time of change. I support all banks' powers, both State and 
national, to export interest rates across State lines and to make 
unassigned loans with clear regulatory certainty. Again, this promotes 
access to credit.

  The issues raised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's 
true lender rule and S.J. Res. 15, however, are not limited to ensuring 
access to credit or protecting consumers from predatory lending and 
have much larger implications for our banking system.
  State-chartered banks have existed since the founding of our 
Republic. After the passage of the National Bank Act of 1864, our 
country fostered a dual banking system, and our country is all the 
stronger for it. The United States is the leader of the global 
financial system because we have a banking system that is based on 
competitive equality, flexibility, and innovation.
  Under the Federal laws that protect our dual banking system, State 
and nationally chartered depository institutions have nearly identical 
powers to carry out the business of banking across State lines with 
legal clarity. This is because of State parity and the so-called State 
wild card laws, the Riegle-Neal Act, and subsequent amendments over the 
years. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC have broadly supported these 
policies as well, adopting rules that promote equality for State banks 
vis-a-vis national banks.
  Esther George, President of the Kansas City Fed, noted in a 2012 
speech that ``the dual banking system has provided and continues to 
offer significant benefits to our financial system and economy . . . 
multiple options for state and federal charters have led to 
considerable innovation and improvement in banking services.''
  So Congress and our Federal bank supervisors, on a roundly bipartisan 
basis, have always been committed to maintaining parity between State 
and nationally chartered institutions.
  This brings us to today's vote. The problem with the true lender rule 
before us is that it has the potential to upend parity between State 
and national banks. In a nutshell, the OCC true lender rule determines 
which banks or other financial institutions actually make a consumer 
loan. Many States have different legal standards for determining this. 
Ultimately, this would allow national banks to make and assign loans 
more easily than State-chartered banks, giving them a distinct 
advantage in the lending business.
  The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation did not adopt companions to the OCC true lender 
rule. It is likely those Agencies do not have the legal authority to 
adopt a similar rule for State banks. The FDIC confirmed this during 
public remarks in December 2020. Consequently, we are left with a 
scenario where national banks and Federal savings associations have a 
great deal of legal clarity about marketplace lending and State-
chartered banks do not.

[[Page S2438]]

  Why does this matter? There are approximately 3,954 State-chartered 
banks in our country as of December. There are approximately 1,062 
national banks and Federal savings associations that are depository 
institutions. That means that of the approximately 5,016 commercial 
banks in our dual banking system, about 79 percent are State banks and 
21 percent are national banks and Federal savings institutions. The OCC 
true lender rule applies to only 21 percent of the banks in our 
country. Does a rule that applies to only 21 percent of the banks 
really promote parity between State and nationally chartered 
institutions? This chart shows plain as day that it does not.
  Moreover, State-chartered banks are the primary banks currently 
engaged in the kind of marketplace lending envisioned by the OCC true 
lender rule. Many State banks have innovative and thriving partnerships 
with nonbank lenders today. The OCC true lender rule will cause those 
partnerships to shift to national banks. Why would a nonbank lender 
choose to partner with a State bank that lacks the legal clarity of a 
national bank or savings association and the preemption that follows 
Federal law? I do not believe they will. There would be a great deal of 
legal uncertainty for them because of State consumer protection laws. 
Many of the State bank partnerships we see today in the marketplace 
lending arena may disappear as the nonbank lenders naturally gravitate 
towards the greater legal clarity of national banks.
  This rule, in effect, would make these innovative partnerships the 
domain of national banks, rendering State-chartered banks to be more 
like second-class institutions. That has not been the will of Congress 
in the past, and I don't believe it is today.
  A prominent law firm noted in January of this year that ``for 
institutions that participate in marketplace lending, most of which are 
state-chartered banks, the lack of an FDIC rule creates a significant 
exception to the federal support for the marketplace lending model and 
appears to largely leave the issue to the states.''
  Many wonder why States cannot adopt their own true lender rules on a 
State-by-State basis or adopt some kind of uniform law. This likely 
will not work for a number of reasons.
  First, were a State like Wyoming to adopt its own true lender rule 
for its own banks, what would require another State to respect the 
Wyoming true lender rule and set aside its own consumer protection laws 
that conflict with the Wyoming law? It likely would not, and that State 
would likely require a Wyoming bank without a branch in that State to 
abide by its own consumer protection laws in doing business there. This 
is a basic tenet of States maintaining sovereignty within their own 
borders, limited only by the U.S. Constitution and Federal law.
  Secondly, a uniform law adopted at the State level would likely take 
3 to 5 years, and by that time, marketplace lending would firmly be the 
province of nationally chartered institutions. There would then be no 
need for the law.
  So where does that leave our dual banking system? The OCC true lender 
rule clarifies a thorny legal question and restricts the application of 
State consumer protection laws, providing legal clarity in marketplace 
lending to 21 percent of the banks in this country, while essentially 
telling the other 79 percent that they should convert to a national 
charter or risk being left behind. That is the kind of choice Congress 
has rejected in the past.
  Many question the value of using the Congressional Review Act against 
the true lender rule since it will prevent the OCC from adopting a 
similar rule in the future. However, again, both the FDIC and the 
Federal Reserve likely do not have the requisite statutory authority to 
adopt their own true lender rule anyway. As a result, there is no rule 
or Agency-based solution that fixes this problem in a satisfactory way.
  For the true lender rule to apply equally to all State and national 
banks, Congress must act. Leaving the OCC true lender rule in place 
would reduce the likelihood of Congress fixing the issue. Disapproving 
this rule will ensure that this issue remains top-of-mind for many and 
can be fixed in a lasting way that ensures a level playing field. This 
is a classic example of an issue crying out for a uniform national 
standard enacted by Congress, which applies to all banks.
  The United States is the leader of the global financial system for 
many reasons, but one of those is surely the innovation, competition, 
and diversity of thought brought about by our dual banking system. This 
is a privilege, not a right, however, and one must work hard to 
maintain that for future generations.
  I am proud to be a vocal advocate of financial innovation in this 
Chamber, and I will continue to work hard towards modernizing our 
financial system in a responsible manner. However, for innovation to be 
truly lasting, it has to be built on a solid foundation and not pick 
winners and losers between national banks and State banks.
  Only Congress can truly fix this issue. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to accomplish this. In the coming days, I will be 
introducing legislation to do just that. Until this is fixed, the 
current ``valid when made'' rule will continue to provide legal clarity 
to Federal and State banks.
  I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider the potential impact of 
the OCC true lender rule on State-chartered banks.
  In order to preserve our dual banking system and Congress's past 
actions to ensure parity between State and nationally chartered banks, 
I do not have any other option but to support S.J. Res. 15
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Ohio.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is National Police Week. It is a 
time every year when we stop to pay tribute to our law enforcement 
officers around the country, the men and women in blue who serve us 
every day in my State of Ohio and every State represented in this 
Chamber.
  We also remember the brave law enforcement officers who tragically 
died in the line of duty. We can never forget this is a dangerous 
profession. The National Law Enforcement Memorial and Museum reported 
that 2020 was the deadliest year for law enforcement in decades. In 
Ohio alone, we sadly lost six brave law enforcement officers over the 
past year. Here in the Capitol, of course, we lost three officers over 
the past year, including on January 6. In the course of our Nation's 
history, more than 24,000 officers have died in the line of duty.
  I was proud to join colleagues in March in sponsoring legislation 
called the Protect and Serve Act, which would create Federal penalties 
on those who would attempt to harm or kill a police officer. I believe 
Protect and Serve would send a strong message to help deter these 
crimes. Ultimately, I think it would make our men and women in blue 
safer and help save lives.
  This week, I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with the 
families of our fallen police officers and thanking them and thanking 
law enforcement for what they do every day to protect us. One way to 
express our gratitude is passing laws that will assist them in their 
critical work to keep us safe.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  With that in mind, I am also on the floor today to call on my 
colleagues to support our law enforcement by taking decisive action to 
help them to keep some of the deadliest drugs in the world from coming 
into our communities. It is not an overstatement to say that this is a 
matter of life or death.
  Overdose deaths in the United States have sadly reached a record high 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to recent data from the Centers 
for Disease Control, 87,000 Americans died during the 12-month period 
between September 2019 and September 2020, the most recent data we 
have. This can be directly attributed to the circumstances surrounding 
the pandemic. So many families are feeling the pain of these losses. 
Sadly, based on the current trends, we expect calendar year 2020 in 
full to be even worse.
  What is the main driver of these overdoses and overdose deaths? 
Synthetic opioids, most notably fentanyl. Fentanyl is 50 times more 
powerful than heroin, relatively inexpensive, deadly, and incredibly 
addictive. For years, this has been coming to our shores from China, 
first predominantly

[[Page S2439]]

through our mail system, and with our new legislation in place to 
prevent that from happening, much of it is now coming in through 
Mexico. In 2019, there were 70,630 deaths from opioids and other drugs, 
and more than half of those--36,359--involved fentanyl, sometimes mixed 
with other drugs like cocaine and crystal meth or heroin.
  Again, of all the poisons, fentanyl is the most deadly. It does have 
a medical purpose and can be used to treat patients in severe pain the 
same way morphine is used.
  Both fentanyl and morphine are classified under schedule II by the 
drug enforcement authorities. In order to avoid prosecution under that 
scheduling order, drug traffickers started making slight modifications 
to fentanyl, creating what we call fentanyl analogs or fentanyl-related 
substances, essentially copycat fentanyl.
  Evil scientists in places like China, Mexico, and India, working in 
unregulated pharmaceutical plants, will make a slight modification to 
fentanyl, sometimes adjusting a single molecule, to create what are, 
essentially, these fentanyl copycats.
  While these copycats may have the same narcotic properties as 
fentanyl, these tiny variations allow these traffickers to evade 
prosecution.
  Oftentimes, by the way, these fentanyl-related substitutes, these 
copycats, are even more powerful than fentanyl itself. Take, for 
example, carfentanil.
  These fentanyl-related substances are the reason I am on the floor 
today. In 2018--2018--in recognition of the growing threat these 
copycats posed to our public health, the DEA temporarily scheduled 
fentanyl-related substances as schedule I, the highest designation they 
can give.
  Since then, we have passed two temporary extensions of that 
designation. Most recently, Congress passed a 5-month extension just 
ahead of the previous deadline of May 6, just a couple weeks ago, and 
President Biden signed that legislation into law last week.
  I supported that temporary extension because the alternative was 
worse. The only alternative was to let these substances become legal. 
But I don't think kicking the can down the road for another 5 months is 
nearly enough to safeguard against the threat of copycat fentanyl. We 
need to do much more between now and when this temporary scheduling 
extension expires in October.
  Law enforcement needs certainty, and the drug cartels and those evil 
scientists need to know we are serious in addressing this problem, that 
there will be consequences.
  We need a permanent solution. Specifically, let's pass bipartisan 
legislation I introduced with my colleague Senator Manchin called FIGHT 
Fentanyl, which simply says: Let's not allow these illicitly 
manufactured and deadly synthetic opioids to suddenly become legal 
again. That is what law enforcement wants. That is what our communities 
demand. That is what we deserve to give them. It is long overdue that 
we make this designation permanent.
  I know some of my colleagues oppose permanent scheduling of these 
fentanyl drugs because they are concerned about mandatory minimum 
sentences, and also that it could hinder research into future 
medications to treat addiction. Let me address both of those quickly.
  First, there is this concern about the harsh punishments that don't 
fit the nature of the crime. I share that concern. That is why our 
legislation ensures that mandatory minimum sentences are not 
automatically imposed in any criminal case. We want the judge to look 
at the severity of the crime and consider all relevant factors in 
sentencing. So that issue has been addressed in our bipartisan 
legislation.
  There has been a great deal of conversation about the impact of 
prosecutions and incarcerations on specific populations, including 
minority communities. What is often lost in this debate, I will say, is 
the growing impact of fatal overdoses in those same communities. Since 
2016, while White fatalities have decreased through the period of 2019, 
the data we have shows that overdoses from opioids among Black 
Americans, particularly Black men, have actually gotten worse, not 
better.
  From 2011 to 2016, that same time period, when White overdoses and 
deaths were reduced, Black Americans had the highest increase in 
synthetic opioid-involved overdose deaths, compared to all populations.
  And while in 2017 to 2018 overall opioid-involved overdose fatalities 
decreased by just over 4 percent, rates among Black and Hispanic 
Americans actually increased. This is an issue we must address here.
  Another issue my colleagues have raised, again, is concern that 
permanently scheduling fentanyl and its analogues somehow hinders 
research into treating addiction. First of all, I agree we need this 
research. We need it badly. One example of this is coming up with 
naloxone, a miracle drug based on heroin that actually reverses the 
effects of an overdose.
  I spoke to the scientist, Roger Crystal, just last week, who 
developed the nasal version of this naloxone. It is a miracle. I have 
seen it work, and it saves lives.
  Researchers have told me there are barriers to being approved to 
legally research schedule I substances. There is also a stigma to 
conducting this kind of research, even though we know that it could 
lead to the development of new treatments. But this is something we can 
easily address by allowing qualified researchers the ability to study 
fentanyl analogues under schedule II as opposed to schedule I. So we 
can address that issue.
  I am open to working with my colleagues to address these barriers, 
and I believe that we can do that through the legislation creating 
flexibility in the registration system for scientists.
  But I would urge my colleagues that we need to use the next 5 months 
to do the hard work of finding a permanent solution to this crisis 
before we have to once again run the risk of letting these drugs become 
legal and the message that that sends and the deaths that would occur 
as a result. The U.S. Senate can take the lead and permanently classify 
these dangerous narcotics that are literally killing tens of thousands 
of our fellow citizens every year. Instead of kicking the can down the 
road again for 5 months from now, let's make it permanent. The House 
and the Biden administration should support this effort. Lives are at 
stake.
  It is important that we continue to focus this body, as we have, on 
the demand side of this equation--prevention, treatment, longer term 
recovery for fentanyl and for other substances.
  But it is also important that we not allow these substances to come 
on the streets at lower and lower costs and at greater and greater 
volumes. That is what would happen if we do not move as a Congress to 
ensure that these fentanyl copycats and fentanyl itself remain illicit 
drugs, as they are.
  Let's do the right thing for our community. Let's do the right thing 
for law enforcement. Let's be sure they have the predictability and 
certainty in law enforcement to know that these criminals can be 
prosecuted, these traffickers.
  We need to act now to address the threat of these deadly fentanyl 
drugs coming into our communities. I urge the Senate to pass the FIGHT 
Fentanyl bill. Join us in this effort so we can better work to reverse 
the tragic rise in overdose deaths around the United States of America.
  I yield the floor


                              S.J. Res. 15

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of 
the Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency's ``True Lender Rule.'' This rule was 
rushed through by the previous administration with complete disregard 
to the harm it would cause already struggling working Americans.
  The true lender rule undercuts important consumer protections at the 
State level and greenlights high-cost ``rent-a-bank'' schemes. These 
schemes let predatory lenders evade State interest rate caps by 
funneling high-interest loans--loans that are illegal under State law--
-through national banks.
  We know these lenders prey upon those struggling to make ends meet 
and are more likely to operate in areas with higher concentrations of 
poverty. And they offer complicated loans that are designed to trap 
consumers in an endless cycle of debilitating debt.
  What is especially troubling is that this rule was finalized in 
November of

[[Page S2440]]

last year at a time when so many were reeling from an unprecedented 
public health and economic crisis. And while so many American families 
struggle to put food on the table and make their rent or mortgage 
payments, the OCC's rule makes it easier for predatory lenders to prey 
on those most vulnerable, exacerbating the economic hardship of 
millions.
  Currently, 45 States and the District of Columbia have instituted 
interest rate caps on installment loans to protect consumers. Earlier 
this year, my home State of Illinois passed into law a 36-percent cap 
on interest rates for consumer loans. These protections are essential 
to ensuring that hard-working Americans are not exploited.
  The true lender rule would allow predatory lenders to evade these 
important State-level consumer protections. Twenty-five State attorneys 
general, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, recently 
wrote to me and my colleagues to underscore the dangers of the OCC's 
true lending rule. They say in their letter, ``The OCC's Rule would be 
exploited by lenders seeking to circumvent these state interest-rate 
caps and invite, indeed welcome, predatory consumer-lending 
partnerships . . .''
  I agree with the concerns raised by Attorney General Raoul and his 
counterparts. The Federal Government should be doing more to protect 
the financial security of Americans, not less.
  Congress needs to take action--now more than ever--to protect working 
families from predatory lending practices. We must rescind this harmful 
true lender rule. However, addressing the harm of this rule is not 
enough. More must be done to protect vulnerable American consumers. For 
more than a decade, I have pushed for a Federal interest rate cap of 36 
percent on all consumer loans. This standard is not radical or new. The 
Federal Government already affords similar protections to military 
servicemembers and their families. We should expand those protections 
to all Americans.
  COVID-19 has devastated the lives of millions of Americans and 
brought significant economic challenges to so many households. We need 
to be protecting the most vulnerable populations who are just trying to 
get back to normal and get a fair shot at the American dream.
  Let's come together on a common goal: to protect American consumers 
from predatory lending practices. Passing today's CRA resolution would 
bring us one step closer to that goal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the vote we are about to take on this Van 
Hollen resolution, S.J. Res. 15, is a bipartisan opportunity for us to 
show people whom we serve that we are on their side.
  States all over the country--red and blue States, States in the South 
and Midwest, on both coasts--have all recognized that people need 
protections from predatory lenders. That is why nearly every State and 
the District of Columbia have passed laws to limit, to cap the 
interest--the amount of interest--that can be charged on payday and 
other loans.
  In the late 1990s, payday lenders were desperate to find a way to 
evade State laws that limited them from charging exorbitant interest 
rates that trap people in a cycle of debt they can't get out of, no 
matter how hard they work. They came up with what the Comptroller of 
the Currency called ``rent-a-charter''--what we now know as a ``rent-a-
bank'' scheme.
  Because banks are generally not subject to these State laws, payday 
lenders funneled their loans through a small number of willing banks. 
It looked like the banks were making the loans, when it was really the 
payday lenders.
  Federal regulators in both parties--Republicans and Democrats--saw 
through this very obvious ruse that hurt low-income people who were 
forced to get credit any way they could. Federal regulators cracked 
down. Under both President Bush and President Obama, the Office of 
Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation--OCC and FDIC--shut down a series of these schemes by 
payday lenders and banks.
  States from across the country also stepped in to protect their 
residents. Georgia, West Virginia, my State of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New 
York, Maryland, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, Illinois, Virginia, 
and Nebraska all passed new laws and regulations either to stop these 
schemes or to cap interest rates on payday loans at 36 percent--still a 
very, very high number that most of us never pay, but that people who 
can only get credit that way end up paying, unfortunately. It is still 
a high number that, obviously, will make any company making these loans 
plenty of money.
  Several other States, including California and Ohio, also passed laws 
to limit the interest that can be charged on consumer loans. These new 
laws passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  Now, get this: More than 75 percent of voters in Nebraska and South 
Dakota supported the ballot initiatives to cap interest rates on payday 
loans. So three-fourths of the voters going to the polls in a popular 
vote wanted to cap interest rates on payday loans in those two States.
  In recent years, new financial technology companies emerged that 
partner with banks to offer responsible small-dollar loans at more 
affordable rates.
  But we also have a separate group of online payday lenders 
resurrecting the same old rent-a-bank scheme to offer abusive, high-
interest loans. They are not even attempting to hide it.
  One online lender told its investors it would get around California's 
new law by making loans--these were their words, this lender's--through 
``bank sponsors . . . not subject to the same proposed state level rate 
limitations.''
  So he or she is even acknowledging that States--voters or State 
legislatures or both--are saying: We want to cap those interest rates 
so people don't take out a small loan and end up paying 200, 300 
percent after these payday lenders put that on them.
  Another lender said: ``There is no reason why we wouldn't be able to 
replace our California business with a bank program.''
  So they know what they have to do. They know they are going against 
the intent of the legislature and the intent of the voters.
  Given the broad bipartisan support for these laws, we had hoped that 
the Trump OCC would take action and crack down on these schemes, the 
same way that Bush and Obama had done--schemes that have been rejected 
by voters and legislatures over and over, in State after State after 
State.
  But last year, the OCC issued what is known as the true lender rule, 
overruling voters of both parties, giving essentially a free pass to 
these abusive rent-a-bank schemes.
  Now, to fight back on behalf of low-income people and on behalf of 
fair play, a broad bipartisan coalition is asking Congress to overturn 
the OCC's harmful true lender rule.
  That support includes credit unions, State bank regulators--
Republicans and Democrats alike--and State attorneys general of both 
parties. One of the most outspoken has been the Republican attorney 
general of Nebraska, because his State passed--his State's voters 
passed--a limit, 75 percent of them, to keep interest rates down.
  There is support from small business groups, support from the 
Military Officers Association of America.
  We know that payday lenders especially prey on young members of the 
military. One of them may be off in a foreign country while the spouse 
stays back at the base or stays back in a community and is struggling 
with just having the resources to get by. They are preyed upon so 
often.
  Other groups are the National Association of Evangelicals, the 
Southern Baptist Convention, and other members of the Faith in Just 
Lending Coalition.
  That coalition wrote to Congress:

       Predatory payday and auto title lenders are notorious for 
     exploiting loopholes in order to offer debt-trap loans to 
     families struggling to make ends meet. The OCC's ``True 
     Lender'' rule creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck 
     through.

  That came from this coalition--the coalition of attorneys general, 
the Military Officers Association, the National Association of 
Evangelicals, and the Southern Baptist Convention. They are saying the 
OCC's true lender rule creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck 
through.

[[Page S2441]]

  We know why these commonsense laws that our States passed are 
popular. We know why they enjoy bipartisan support in States across the 
country. People don't want abusive lenders to prey on them, their loved 
ones or their neighbors.
  Some issues that come before the Senate are complicated. They divide 
people. There are thorny nuances to consider. This isn't one of them. 
It is simple. Let's protect the people whom we serve. They have clearly 
cried out for us to do this. We should protect those people.
  I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 15 to overturn this rule.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, let me thank our chair of the Banking Committee, 
someone who has fought against the abuses in the financial services 
industry throughout his career, Senator Brown. Let me also thank 
Senator Van Hollen, who, again, has been one of those leaders doing 
great things to help people who are often taken advantage of.
  Now, for millions of working Americans, one of the most dangerous 
things that can happen is falling victim to predatory lenders. 
Unscrupulous actors have always promised quick cash or credit to people 
with unexpected expenses or financial difficulties, only to trap them 
with crippling interest rates that can erase a person's life savings or 
even claim their homes. They are in trouble. They reach out to the 
lifeline, and the lifeline is a trap. Often they are trapped for years 
and even some for their whole lives.
  That is why more than 40 States have passed laws that prohibit this 
behavior and placed limits on interest rates made by nonbank lenders. 
It runs the gamut from liberal California to conservative Texas.
  Inexplicably--inexplicably--the Trump administration decided to give 
these predatory lenders a massive loophole to circumvent State law and 
once again prey on low-income Americans. Under the Trump 
administration's rule, so long as payday lenders found a bank to 
provide the cash upfront and attach their name to the transaction, 
interest rates in the triple digits were suddenly OK, even if the 
States explicitly banned it.
  It is despicable and so typical of the Trump administration not 
caring about average folks at all and just listening to the special 
interests. It had devastating consequences for working families and for 
small businesses.
  In New York, the owner of a southern food restaurant in Harlem took 
out a $67,000 loan from a fraudulent lender to make renovations to 
their restaurant. They fell behind on payments and tried to work with 
their lender when COVID hit and realized that their loan had an APR of 
268 percent. Rather than work toward a solution, the lender went to the 
bank to try and foreclose on their property--their property in which 
they had put blood and sweat and tears--stating that the Trump rule 
gave them the grounds to do so. It mattered little that New York State 
law had a 268-percent interest rate as blatantly illegal.
  So today's vote is simple. It would revoke the Trump administration's 
so-called true lender rule that permits predatory lenders to exploit 
small businesses and working Americans. In the middle of a pandemic, 
the last thing we should be doing is perpetrating a rule that makes it 
easier for payday lenders to scam working people and business owners.
  With today's vote, the Senate stands up for working families and 
small businesses all across the country by repealing this terrible, 
essentially Scrooge-like rule pushed by former President Trump and his 
allies.
  And one final point for those who say elections don't make a 
difference. Just look at this. Here was a rule protecting people--
States protected people. The Trump administration comes in and rips 
away those protections, leaving so many people bare and defenseless 
because they were desperate; they need the money.
  Elections occur. A new Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and 
this horrible, horrible rule change by the Trump administration is 
undone. We go back to giving some help and protection to working 
families and small business people.
  This story could be repeated not just with CRAs but up and down the 
line--up and down the line. Elections do make a difference, and today's 
vote shows one of many examples.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 15

  I yield the floor and, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
all remaining time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Heinrich), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Heinrich
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res 15) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 15

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Office of the 
     Comptroller of Currency relating to ``National Banks and 
     Federal Savings Associations as Lenders'' (85 Fed. Reg. 68742 
     (October 30, 2020)), and such rule shall have no force or 
     effect.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me first commend my colleague from Ohio for the 
excellent work, not only moving this forward but the vote counting that 
he did, which worked with a little bit of margin of error.

                          ____________________