[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2260-S2264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume legislative session.
The Senator from Nevada.
National Police Week
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, this week marks National Police Week--a
time for our Nation to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and service of the
men and women in law enforcement, who work every single day to keep our
communities safe. These heroes put their lives on the line to protect
our communities.
I want to give a special thanks to law enforcement officers across
Nevada, who serve every day with honor and integrity. Every day, they
put on the uniform. They kiss their loved ones goodbye and head into
situations that most of us hope we never ever have to face. Whether it
is a major emergency or a domestic dispute or a routine traffic stop,
they face danger every single day. They do it because they believe in
service and because they believe in protecting others.
National Police Week is also about honoring the fallen, those heroes
who left behind family, friends, colleagues, and the communities they
served and helped to protect--heroes like Officer Jason Roscow, who
served for 17 years, proudly, with the North Las Vegas Police
Department and was tragically killed in the line of duty last year.
Officer Roscow devoted his life to serving his fellow Americans--first
in uniform for the U.S. Air Force and then for nearly two decades in
law enforcement in Southern Nevada.
Today, I am thinking about his family--the two sons he left behind--
his fellow officers, and the entire North Las Vegas community that
continues to mourn this tremendous loss.
Unfortunately, Officer Roscow is not alone. In Nevada and across the
country, far too many officers have made the ultimate sacrifice to
their communities. This week, every week, and every day, we honor their
memory. We also honor the work that our officers do.
I want to let Nevada's law enforcement know one thing: I have your
back. That means making sure law enforcement agencies have the funding,
staffing, training, equipment, and mental health resources that you
need to do your jobs safely and effectively. I have worked across party
lines to deliver exactly that for Nevada.
Earlier this year, I helped to secure millions of dollars in funding
to strengthen public safety and support local law enforcement. That
funding included $1 million for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department to procure equipment supporting search and rescue
operations, to support patrols, and to support large-scale event
security.
It included $3 million for Washoe County to acquire a mobile command
intelligence vehicle to improve emergency response capabilities.
The bill also included more than $1 million for the city of Henderson
to implement a domestic violence and sexual assault response program to
better support victims and to improve public safety.
These funds are absolutely critical, and it is one of the best uses
of our taxpayer dollars. Any time that we invest in fighting crime and
keeping people safe, well, we are investing in ourselves, and we are
investing in our communities.
These are so much more meaningful, well, than, let's say, a ballroom
because, right now, Donald Trump has proposed spending $1 billion of
your taxpayer dollars--taxpayer money--on a new White House ballroom.
Imagine that--$1 billion for one room that no one will go to except the
President and his friends. Mr. President, $1 billion at a time when
police departments across America are struggling with staffing
shortages, recruitment challenges, retention issues, and the growing
demands every day on officers.
Let me tell you, this $1 billion could do a whole lot to support our
local law enforcement. Mr. President, $1 billion?
Well, it could fund nearly 2 years of full funding for the COPS
Hiring Program to help communities hire and train and retain more
officers. Not only that, it could fund 2 years of the COPS Hiring
Program and fully fund 2 years of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
Program. Do you know what the Benefits Program is? It is to help
support the families of the fallen officers and the officers who have
been permanently disabled in the line of duty. It could fund 2 full
years for the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program and, like I
said, 2 years for the COPS Hiring Program.
There are a few other things that that $1 billion could do that is a
lot better use than a ballroom for our public safety; $1 billion could
also fund an entire year of the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grants, which help our local law enforcement agencies combat violent
crime, invest in crime prevention, support drug treatment programs, and
strengthen public safety initiatives. These are actually investments
that are keeping all of our communities safe everywhere--that are
keeping all of you safe; that are keeping our officers safe.
That is why I am going to be doing a few things. I am going to be
filing two amendments to the Republicans' reconciliation package that
would redirect the $1 billion boondoggle of a ballroom. It would take
that funding away from the White House ballroom and put it toward the
programs that support law enforcement and public safety in our
communities.
Remember that. With 2 years here, 2 years here, and another year here
for funding for law enforcement safety, for survivors, and benefits, it
matters.
If my Republican colleagues truly support law enforcement the way
they claim to, then they, too, should support my amendments.
I am doing this because I believe we must do everything we can to
give our police the resources that they need to stay safe. They are the
ones who put their lives on the line to protect us,
[[Page S2261]]
and their safety should be a priority for all of us.
I am going to continue to work with my colleagues here in the Senate,
on both sides of the aisle, on solutions that support our police
departments, the officers who serve, and their families because our
first responders, our law enforcement run in when everyone is running
out. They take that risk every day. They will never go to the ballroom.
They need the help in our communities. It is the least we can do.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
National Flood Insurance Program
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, hurricane season is less than 3 weeks
away--3 weeks--and we have to act to make flood insurance affordable
again before it is too late.
Last year, thankfully, no hurricanes hit my State. Now, no hurricanes
hitting my State is good news for everyone in my State but especially
for homeowners who do not have flood insurance.
Every year, more and more people have to drop the National Flood
Insurance Program coverage because it is too expensive and too
unreliable. So this is about making flood insurance affordable again.
Between 2022 and 2024, 70,000 people in Louisiana dropped coverage.
And last year, another 52,000 did. Why? They need it. They are trying
to be responsible. They are being priced out. And they are being priced
out of flood protection by the rising costs of a post-Biden era flood
insurance program. Under President Joe Biden, FEMA implemented Risk
Rating 2.0 as a new risk assessment program, even though Congress never
gave approval.
Now, look at this.
Since 2023, rates have increased, making people's flood insurance
premiums so high they cannot afford them. They have got a certain
amount of money to pay for their mortgage, their flood insurance
premium, and their property and casualty.
Now, these are hard-working families trying to do the right thing,
but having to choose between paying their mortgage, the property and
casualty, the flood insurance--oh, by the way, buying food and
gasoline, health insurance, taking care of their children, as well as
any kind of ancillary expenses.
Now, these are some expenses here. And you can see, after the
implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 to Calcasieu Parish, which is in the
southwest portion of my State, Property 1 would have almost a $12,000 a
year risk of insurance. They would try and decrease their risk of
flooding. That is premitigation, before they decrease their risk of
flooding. They get a $758 increase, and the post-risk Risk Rating 2.0
is here, and that is their percent increase.
On Property No. 2, instead of a 1,183-percent increase, there is an
867-percent increase.
This is unaffordable for a middle-income family trying to make ends
meet.
Now, people want to go to sleep at night knowing they are protected
and they have taken care of things, in case a terrible event happens
which affects them, for example a flood.
In 2016--it is one example--a 46-foot river crest swept the land
completely out from underneath a Cypress Point home, even though they
had elevated it above the base-flood elevation. That means, if your
average flooding is here, they had built their house above that area--I
shouldn't say ``average''--of maximal flooding. What the worst case
could be, they had built their house above that. Despite that, the
family doing everything right, a natural disaster still wiped out their
home.
This is when you want flood insurance. The family has done everything
right, but, nonetheless, through an act of God, they lose it all.
But it is possible this family cannot afford their flood insurance.
So if Congress has the power to guarantee reliable flood insurance that
people can afford--and we do have that power--why don't we do it?
Instead, nearly one-fifth of the people in my State--almost 100,000--
can no longer afford their insurance. And it is not just my State.
Millions of Americans across the Nation rely on the National Flood
Insurance Program. They are all getting pounded across the Nation by
Risk Rating 2.0.
I am leading a group of Republicans who, last year, tried to end the
policy, and I recently followed up with FEMA, asking that they would be
urgent in addressing the harm Risk Rating 2.0 is doing the National
Flood Insurance Program for people in my State and across the Nation.
And President Trump has begun to speak about how we make things more
affordable. He understands this. The American people need to be able to
afford to live, and right now, the component of their life which is
flood insurance is not working.
In 2019, President Trump and I worked together to delay Risk Rating
2.0 for a year. I ask that we do it again, but let's make it permanent.
The American people need flood insurance which is affordable and also
reliable.
Right now, the NFIP relies on Congress to both fund and authorize the
program. Now ``to fund'' means that if funding is ever withheld by
Congress, like the Democrats have done multiple times this Congress,
the National Flood Insurance Program cannot operate, and that leaves
millions of Americans hanging in uncertainty.
Now, Congress must vote every year to reinstate the National Flood
Insurance Program. I have introduced legislation to automatically
extend the program to operate during a lapse in authorization. It can
still issue policies, renew contracts, pay claims, and access funding.
Coverage should be there whether politicians decide to act responsibly
or not.
And speaking of acting responsibly, Congress needs to act responsibly
now and soon because Federal support is critical.
In President Trump's first administration, he created a program
called BRIC, B-R-I-C, short for Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities, which provided costs and lifesaving grants that States
across the Nation, including Louisiana, benefited from.
In President Trump's second administration, they assured me they
would release more of these funds, and I am pleased to say that a new
round has just been released: $1 billion to help States impacted by
natural disasters such as Louisiana.
Now, I have been fighting to get these BRIC grant dollars released. I
am pleased that it is done.
And this is a picture of one of those projects, which is helping to
mitigate the risk of flooding, building storm and flood protection in
the West Shore Lake Pontchartrain or the Morganza to the Gulf, two
areas of my State which are at risk of flooding.
But as much as we need recovery assistance, we also know that the
best way to lower the cost of flood insurance is by trying to make sure
you don't flood in the first place. That is why, through my work
negotiating the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Louisiana has
received so far $3 billion--I am sorry--hundreds of millions of dollars
for flood mitigation and hundreds of millions for coastal restoration.
And here we see some of that activity. This is a bargain for the
Federal taxpayer. It is easier and cheaper to prevent a flood than to
provide recovery afterward.
Right now, if you go from the New Orleans area to Baton Rouge on the
I-10, you pass LaPlace, and you will see construction of a huge flood
control structure, which I have toured last August. This has received
over a billion dollars to build this. It is going to protect flooding,
which indeed protects the liability of Federal taxpayers. And this is
money which I have helped--a portion of which I helped--to obtain.
And, by the way, if you never flood, the National Flood Insurance
Program has less money to pay out. I know that an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure. In this case, this money for this levee could
prevent billions of dollars in recovery.
If you go to Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, you will go by the
Morganza to the Gulf levee project--tremendous local support, the
locals putting up hundreds of millions of dollars to build. But I have
been able to
[[Page S2262]]
get $615 million through the infrastructure bill and other mechanisms,
including a funding package recently signed into law by President
Trump.
And as an example of the positive thing that can occur, this being
partially completed--not completely, but partially--when Hurricane Ida
came, there were 10,000 homes that did not flood that would have
flooded if the flood control structure built at that time had not been
built. Put differently, it wasn't completed, but enough of it was built
that it prevented 10,000 homes from being flooded that would have
flooded had it not been started.
This is how you save money for the Federal taxpayer. This is how you
preserve communities. A mother will rest more easily knowing that the
home in which she lives will stay safe and dry, even if the rains come,
the winds blow, even if the hurricane hits the shore. And the funding
that I am delivering gives her that peace of mind.
But there is more to come. I tell folks I wake up every morning and
think about how to make life better for the people in my State and my
country. And I can tell you that reliable, accountable, affordable
flood insurance is part of that. That is what I am working toward as I
continue taking Federal investment back to my State for flood
prevention to help protect the Federal taxpayer from paying excessive
dollars in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, today, I rise to oppose
the resolutions, these three CRAs.
Under former Director Chopra, the Biden CFPB frequently pushed or
ignored the limits of the CFPB's authority. Consistently, they ignored
their own limits because power--power--was more important than doing
the right thing for small businesses across this great country.
He attempted to assert the CFPB in issues far outside its statutory
limits, including healthcare, labor, and technology.
The Biden CFPB's guidance documents we are discussing today were
highly prescriptive, established new regulatory requirements, and were
all issued without formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure
Act's notice and comment process.
This is not speculation. Multiple Biden CFPB policies have been
struck down in courts--let me say it differently. Court after court
after court struck down nonsense after nonsense after nonsense.
The current administration was right to correct this overreach and
refocus the CFPB.
Last year, Congress enacted a Congressional Review Act resolution
rejecting the Biden CFPB's last-minute attempt to impose price controls
on overdraft fees. These are those junk fees that you heard President
Biden talk about during his State of the Union presentations and
speeches. It is utterly ridiculous to lump all these things together.
I can't think of a worse way to govern than the Biden
administration's approach to the CFPB and the playbook that they used
time and time again, putting onerous pressure on small businesses that
merely--my words--confiscated millions of dollars from private
businesses without actually ending in a finding. This happened over and
over and over again. Weaponizing the Federal Government against private
businesses is just wrong.
I can't think of anything more clear than how wrong the CFPB has been
consistently.
Agencies should not be conducting supervision or exams without
explicit statutory authority to do so.
The Biden administration CFPB's medical debt advisory opinion is
another example of Agency overreach. This guidance creates serious
privacy concerns. Imagine a debt company being able to peer into your
medical records to determine which debt should be and which debt should
not be a part of their process. I don't want a debt company looking at
medical records--certainly not my medical records--and making a
determination on what they can and cannot do. That is just utterly
ridiculous but consistent with the Biden administration's approach to
the CFPB.
We ought not bring that back. We ought not ever bring that back. That
means more third parties would have more patient-level health and
financial information, increasing the risk of misuse, overcollection,
and data breaches. Don't forget the data breach we saw at the CFPB. We
don't want more information in the hands of people who can't handle the
information they had before.
This is, as we know, Madam President, something we know in Wyoming
and South Carolina. We just call it common sense.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose all these motions
to proceed and the underlying resolutions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Iran
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Madam President, there is a debate right now about
the cost of the Iran war. Now, this administration won't or can't give
us a straight answer, but Coloradans can.
They are paying $4.50 a gallon for gas that not too long ago they
were getting for 2.50 a gallon. That is $25 more every time they fill
up their tank.
Shoppers are seeing their grocery bills go through the roof. Since
January alone, the price of berries--strawberries, blueberries--has
doubled. Today, the average family of four spends over $1,000 a month
just on groceries, and that number keeps climbing the longer the war
drags on.
Mortgage rates jumped half a point in 2 months, costing most home
buyers trying to buy a house over $100 additional each month.
Just yesterday, President Trump admitted he doesn't ``think about
Americans' financial situations.'' He doesn't think about the financial
situation of Americans when making the decisions on the war in Iran--
well, finally the truth. The American people know this, and they have
seen how the policies of this administration are costing lives overseas
and exaggerating a cost-of-living emergency here at home.
While the White House has a hard time keeping track of what it is
spending on the war--there was no plan at the beginning; it doesn't
seem we have a good off-ramp--American families are struggling just to
deliver their basic needs. To the administration, these might be just
numbers on a spreadsheet, but to the rest of us, these are our family
members, these are our neighbors, it is all of you.
Last week, I met an Uber driver named Kareem. It costs him $68 every
day to fill up his tank with gas. Kareem's expenses now exceed his
take-home pay. He had to find a second job just to support his first
job. He told me he worries every day about having enough money to feed
his children.
It is not just the President's war that is increasing costs; this
comes on the heels of numerous Republican efforts to gut and eviscerate
our healthcare subsidies and our healthcare system and to, in whole
terms, slash the social safety net.
Last week in Denver, I met a guy named TJ. He told me his marketplace
premium went from 30 bucks a month to $500 a month. These are real
numbers. This happened right at the time when he was diagnosed with a
rare blood cancer. TJ couldn't afford his marketplace plan, so he was
forced to drop it. He had to move in with his parents just to stay
afloat.
I also met with a Denver resident who is living with a rare
neurological condition they picked up from COVID. Last year, in the
middle of an endless health battle, her husband was diagnosed with
cancer. Their marketplace premium doubled. They couldn't afford for
both of them to stay on insurance and have healthcare at the same time,
so her husband put off his chemotherapy so that she could get a badly
needed treatment.
Let me say that again. In the wealthiest Nation on Earth, a man with
cancer was forced to go without healthcare to make sure his wife got a
fair shot at beating her sickness, just so his wife could get that
chance. That is shameful.
Her words are going to stay with me. This woman told me that she has
come to terms with death and with the severity of her husband's cancer,
but what she can't accept is the daily battle to afford her healthcare
when the cost of staying alive might well turn out to be bankruptcy.
[[Page S2263]]
These Coloradans aren't outliers. Over 1 million Americans--1 million
Americans--had to drop their health insurance plans in January after
this Congress--the Republicans--refused to extend the Affordable Care
Act tax credits that eliminated a big chunk of those subsidies. So 1
million dropped off. Of the Americans who stayed on with their
insurance, over 3 million missed their monthly payment in January. So 1
million dropped off, and 3 million have stopped payment as of January.
So we could have up to 4 million people newly uncovered. How long
before those 3 million people lose their health insurance? We don't
know.
It is not just people in big cities; farmers across America, farmers
across Colorado were already being crushed by a cost-of-living
emergency. Now soaring food and fertilizer costs are making a grave
situation a crucial one.
One sweet corn farmer in Montrose, CO, told me that fuel normally
takes up about 15 percent of his operating costs. Now it is 65 percent.
He said: If I didn't have a son that was crazy enough to farm, I would
probably quit because the unknowns make it impossible to plan.
Let me tell you, if a farmer can't plan, if he can't make a plan for
how he is going to make the whole year work, he can't plant. Think
about that, because the unknowns make it impossible to plan.
Farmers are now paying 40 percent more for nitrogen-based fertilizer
and, as I said, 60 percent more for diesel. With just a few weeks
remaining in the planting season, 70 percent of farmers and ranchers in
America are saying they can't afford their operating costs.
Add in the tariffs, which are diminishing the futures market for
whatever they are selling, and the worsening drought conditions, the
climate change-caused drought, it is no wonder that so many Colorado
producers are choosing to fallow their land instead of farming as they
have always done.
You don't need a crystal ball to see what comes next. Fewer crops are
suddenly going to mean higher prices. That will be good for those few
farmers who did take the risk--probably an exceptional risk--to go
forward with planting with such unknown outcomes.
As one farmer told me, a country that can't feed itself cannot
survive.
We are hearing stories like this all the time. It doesn't matter if
we are meeting farmers or teachers or restaurant owners, rural or
urban, Republican or Democrat, we are hearing the same thing: Costs are
too high, and Americans need help.
This cost-of-living emergency didn't start with the war, but the war
is making it far worse, and the President's response has just been to
spend more--not on you but on this war. The President recently
requested $1.5 trillion--$1.5 trillion requested to fund the Department
of War, what used to be the Department of Defense.
Madam President, $1.5 trillion--that is money we don't have, money we
are going to have to borrow and add to our ballooning deficit. To put
that in perspective, $1.5 trillion is the equivalent of borrowing
roughly $18,000 for every American family. We are passing $18,000 per
family on to the children of those families.
Now, you ask yourself: Do we really want to take on the cost of that
war when we have no clear path to victory? we don't know what the off-
ramp looks like?
And that doesn't even cover the full cost of the Iran war. The White
House budget director told Congress that a separate funding request is
coming. We are being told to expect up to $200 billion just for
operations and to replenish our stockpiles from the war in Iran--$200
billion. With that money, we could fully fund pre-K for every kid in
America; we could have free community college all across this country;
we could get much closer to universal healthcare coverage.
I think our Nation's priorities have somehow gotten backward. We have
money for ballrooms and bombs and tax breaks for billionaires but very
little for hard-working Americans, the people that make this country
work. It is just plain wrong.
The MAGA Republicans are giving the White House a blank check while
all of you get stuck with the bill.
We need to end this war and stop asking the American people to carry
costs they never agreed to bear.
The President sometimes treats billions like a rounding error.
Coloradans don't have that luxury. Every dollar counts, and hard-
working families are paying the price.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, Senate Democrats are on the floor today
to fight back against President Donald Trump's actions to raise the
cost of living for American families.
Now, you may remember that Donald Trump promised to lower costs on
day one. Instead, he is deliberately raising them. His war in Iran sent
gas prices soaring. His chaotic tariffs are jacking up the costs of
everything from coffee to housing. And as we will discuss today, his
attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cost families at
least $19 billion in just 1 year alone.
The CFPB is the financial cop on the beat for American consumers.
Since 2011, it has been working to catch financial crooks, putting over
$21 billion right back into the hands of hard-working families that had
gotten cheated.
From protecting consumers from predatory medical debt to cracking
down on hidden fees and shotty credit reporting practices that raised
the cost of loans for families, the CFPB has taken action to shield
consumers from getting tricked or trapped by giant banks and big
corporations.
But the Trump administration is hell-bent on destroying the Agency.
Let me count the ways: They tried to fire the entire staff. They tried
to end all funding for the Agency. They told CFPB employees to stop
working to protect consumers--literally, to stop working. They turned
loose lenders who had been caught cheating Americans. They rolled back
commonsense guidelines to protect consumers. And they pretty much have
advertised that there is no financial cop on the beat, inviting
scammers to do their worst to families that are already struggling to
make ends meet in Trump's economy.
Today, we are going to hear from 20 Senators about how the Trump
administration has hurt American families by rolling back commonsense
CFPB rules, and we are going to hear how Congress can make it right.
We are going to vote to undo 20 different ways that the Trump
administration has abandoned consumers and is making life more
expensive for them.
I urge my Republican colleagues to listen with open ears and cast
their votes on behalf of the consumers that they were elected to
represent.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 2
minutes for debate on each motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
defending the consumer protections that the Trump administration is
working so hard to unravel.
During the financial crisis of 2008, Americans lost trillions because
of deceptive and abusive and irresponsible financial practices. And I
saw firsthand what this meant in North Minneapolis and in other
communities around Minnesota. I saw what happened when families lost
their homes, when properties went vacant, when whole blocks went
vacant. It has taken years for my communities to recover.
So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the
aftermath of this crisis to be the strong advocate for consumers. In a
financial marketplace that too often is rigged in favor of the big
financial institutions with so much power and influence, the CFPB was
charged with standing up for the little guy, and it worked. When people
got ripped off, when they were faced with consumer fraud, the CFPB was
there to enforce the law.
[[Page S2264]]
The CFPB has done its job. It has actually worked. It has returned
more than $21 billion stolen from consumers.
But in 2025, when the Trump administration came in, they began
undoing all of this good work and dismantling this Agency that was
created by Congress, by us, to protect the people.
So, today, I want to talk about just one example of what this means.
This is a true story about how these predatory lenders, these predatory
land contracts, and contracts for deed have created such a serious
problem in my home State of Minnesota.
S.J. Res. 149, which we will be voting on today, would ensure that
consumer protections apply to these predatory land contracts.
So here is how this swindle works and how people get taken advantage
of. This is a real story about a father. He worked as a long-haul
truckdriver, and he rented an apartment in the Twin Cities for years.
But it was just too small for his young children, and they were
sleeping sometimes three to a room, all together. But he honestly
didn't make enough money to qualify for a mortgage.
The father heard how he could move into a home with room for each of
his children to grow, how there was this great backyard for them to
play in, and he could do so using a contract for deed.
So what he does is he puts together a hefty downpayment, and they
move into this home. And even though these contracts can seem like a
mortgage, they lack the critical protections in a standard mortgage.
What that means is unscrupulous sellers could take advantage of
unsuspecting buyers. For example, with a land contract, a single missed
payment--a single missed monthly payment--can mean that a family
forfeits all of the money that they have paid in years of payment, and
then they face eviction. They have been able to build no equity at
all. In actual fact, what happens is that they lose everything.
So here is what happened with this Minnesota truckdriver.
After a few months, the cost of diesel went up, and he had fewer
shifts available to work on, and he struggled to make those monthly
payments.
In a story that was published in the Sahan Journal in Minnesota, he
talks about how ``his family'' then found themselves ``at risk of
losing not only the house, but about $100,000`` that ``they have paid''
in, ``including'' their entire ``down payment.'' And ``he never
understood the disadvantages and'' the tricks of this ``contract for
deed.'' But, at this point, ``it [was] too late to get out of it.''
Now, none of this would have happened if he had the protections of a
traditional mortgage. And I want to be clear. I know that the President
represents farming interests. I don't know if it is this way in your
State, Madam President. But in my State, contracts for deed can be
legitimate tools for financing real estate transactions.
But predatory land contracts can be designed to fail, and that is
what happened here. A set of bad actors specifically targeted
Minnesota's Muslim families, who, under the tenets of their faith, were
limited in paying interest with traditional mortgages.
And families thought they were realizing their dream of homeownership
only to be sucked into these contracts that are so-called ``interest
free,'' and they found themselves intentionally in situations designed
by the seller where there is no way they can succeed. They lose their
homes, and they lose all their money with no recourse.
This is not a rare problem. Over 8 million Americans have used
contracts for deed to purchase their home. They deserve the same basic
protections as anyone with a mortgage.
I held a subcommittee hearing on this topic a few years ago with my
colleague Senator Lummis, and we dived into this, and we developed some
bipartisan solutions for establishing just even basic reporting
requirements around this.
And I want to thank Senator Lummis for that partnership.
Here is what happened. In August of 2024, the CFPB took action on
these predatory land contracts. I stood alongside the Director in Saint
Paul, where they issued an advisory opinion affirming that financial
products should be subject to the same consumer protections as
traditional mortgages.
But now, the Trump administration is tearing up that work. They are
tearing up that advisory opinion. Rather than cracking down on the
people who are ripping off families, the President is making it easier
for bad actors to get away with predatory practices like this, by
stealing money from Americans and from Minnesotans.
Colleagues, we should not be on the side of making it easier for our
constituents to get swindled, to make it easier for bad actors to take
away people's homes.
We should be on the side of hard-working Americans, making it easier
for them to afford their lives and making it harder for these bad
actors to rip them off.
That is what this resolution that I offer today would do, and I ask
my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Moody). The Senator from Rhode Island.
____________________