[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11469-11476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF RICHARD CORDRAY TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER 
                    FINANCIAL PROTECTION--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that all future time in quorum 
calls be divided equally between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, during the debate over the budget, Dr. 
Coburn and I offered an amendment to create a separate and independent 
inspector general within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  We introduced this amendment because, thanks to a quirk in Dodd-
Frank, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only major 
Federal agency without its own inspector general. I think people know I 
tend to rely a great deal on inspectors general within the bureaucracy 
to be an independent check to make sure the laws are followed and that 
money is spent according to the law.
  Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but it 
did not create a protection bureau-specific inspector general. Instead, 
because Dodd-Frank funded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
through the Federal Reserve, this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
ended up sharing an inspector general with the Federal Reserve.
  This has created a problem. Right now, the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau's inspector general has a split role. He serves as 
both inspector general for the Federal Reserve and for the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. I believe this creates a great deal of 
confusion and, obviously, a bureaucratic battle for resources. In fact, 
the inspector general has already had to create two separate audit 
plans. He also has had to hire employees who can oversee both the 
Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  The end result is an office split by two very important but very 
different priorities. Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve in order to fund the 
Bureau without having to come to us on Capitol Hill to get 
congressional appropriations. This is a problem but not a problem I am 
going to deal with right now. We had a marriage of convenience, the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.
  The Bureau's function is very different from the Federal Reserve. 
Despite this, years after Dodd-Frank was passed, this unique situation 
remains. My concern is if you have one inspector general trying to 
cover two different entities, the end result is neither gets fully 
overseen. In other words, we don't have adequate checks within the 
bureaucracy to make sure that laws are abided by and that money is 
spent according to law.
  Since the passage of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Congress has 
believed that each Department and each agency needs its own independent 
inspector general. This has been a longstanding bipartisan position.
  Currently, there are 73 inspectors general, in every single Cabinet-
level Department and almost all independent agencies. Even small 
independent agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission and the 
National Science Foundation have their own inspector general.
  In each of these agencies, if each of these agencies has their own 
independent inspector general, shouldn't the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau--particularly since this Bureau doesn't have to come 
to Congress for appropriations. We don't get appropriations oversight 
since some of their decisions can't even be challenged in the courts.
  Now we are in this situation. The majority has opposed commonsense

[[Page 11470]]

changes such as this to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  During the budget debate when Dr. Coburn and I introduced the 
amendment to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-specific 
inspector general, the majority would not allow it to be brought up for 
a vote. The position I heard over and over was the majority did not 
wish to relitigate Dodd-Frank in any way. I did not hear any concerns 
related to the merits of this proposal. Our amendment wasn't about 
relitigating anything, it was about creating accountability and 
oversight at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and doing that 
through an independent inspector general, such as 73 other independent 
agencies have these sorts of checks and balances.
  Because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded directly 
by the Federal Reserve, there are few, if any, congressional oversight 
checks on the Bureau. This makes an independent inspector general even 
more important.
  Right now, it seems to me, since we don't discuss Dodd-Frank very 
often, we don't have legislation related to it. We don't have 
opportunities to amend. This nomination of Mr. Cordray, now before the 
Senate, is the only tool the Senate has to create transparency and 
accountability within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As we 
consider this nomination, I hope we will remember that and consider the 
Senate's role in overseeing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
what steps we can take to make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
more transparent and, hence, more accountable to Congress, and in turn 
to the American people.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, now that the so-called nuclear option has 
been averted and the Senate can now turn its attention to other matters 
of substance, rather than internal matters of how the Senate operates, 
I think it is important we evaluate how legislation that has passed 
this body is working. I wish to focus specifically on the Affordable 
Care Act, which is better known as ObamaCare.
  Amazingly, Senator Reid on Sunday, in one of the talk shows, was 
quoted as saying: ``ObamaCare has been wonderful for America.'' The 
House minority leader, former Speaker Pelosi, has said that 
implementation of the health care law has been fabulous.
  This stands in stark contrast to what Senator Max Baucus, chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee and one of the principal Senate architects 
of ObamaCare, has said--what he told Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services--that the implementation of ObamaCare is a 
train wreck in the making. And then you contrast that with what 
President Obama himself said about the Affordable Care Act, about 
ObamaCare, and he said it is ``working the way it is supposed to.'' 
Well, not all of those things can be true at the same time, and they 
are not. Indeed, in the real world, unfortunately, it looks as though 
ObamaCare is a slow-motion disaster in the making.
  Notwithstanding the President's comments that it is working the way 
it is supposed to, the administration seems to be acknowledging by its 
own actions that it is not working the way it is supposed to. Indeed, 
the administration has chosen to delay the so-called employers mandate, 
and they have begun to admit what Americans have been saying since at 
least 2010 when ObamaCare passed--that it has simply proven to be 
unworkable.
  Rather than accept the reality and support full congressional repeal 
of the law, the administration is instead refusing to enforce the law 
and is choosing to apply it selectively. The law clearly states that as 
of January 2014 all businesses with 50 or more full-time employees have 
to provide their workers with health insurance or else pay a penalty. 
To be clear, I didn't support the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--but 
that is what the law says. Our Democratic colleagues, 60 of them in the 
Senate, and the majority in the then-Democratically controlled House 
passed the law and President Obama signed it, and that is what it says. 
But the President has chosen to take unilateral action and to refuse to 
enforce the law that he himself signed and that congressional Democrats 
passed without a single Republican vote.
  Whether you supported it or you didn't support it, many of us now are 
forced to acknowledge and I would think the administration itself would 
be forced to acknowledge, that the law simply is not working as 
advertised. It is now obvious that the employer mandate has prompted 
many businesses to reduce the number of hours and transform full-time 
jobs into part-time jobs in order to avoid the employer mandate. This 
has contributed to a surge in the number of people working part-time 
jobs for economic reasons. Last month alone that number was 8.2 million 
people--8.2 million Americans who would like to have full-time work but 
simply can't find it, in large part because of the implementation of 
ObamaCare.
  As I said, I voted against ObamaCare 3 years ago. I remember being in 
this Chamber on Christmas Eve at 7 a.m. in 2009 when our Democratic 
colleagues passed ObamaCare without a single vote from this side of the 
aisle. Many of us were voicing concerns about the provisions of 
ObamaCare, including the employer mandate, long before it became law. 
The problems with the mandate will, of course, still be there in 2015 
notwithstanding the 1-year unilateral delay by the administration, and 
they reflect broader problems in the Affordable Care Act as a whole.
  I believe the most commonsense thing we can do is simply to repeal it 
and to start over and replace it with patient-centered reforms that 
actually address the biggest challenges that face most families in 
America.
  The President said: If you like what you have in terms of your health 
coverage, you can keep it. Millions of Americans are now finding that 
not to be the case. The President said a family of four will find their 
premiums reduced, on average, $2,500. Actually, rather than a reduction 
in cost, they are finding their premiums are going up and will go up 
even more when ObamaCare is implemented.
  My point is that whether or not you voted for ObamaCare, it is 
important that we now acknowledge the sad reality that it is not 
working the way even its most vigorous proponents wished it would. 
Indeed, it seems to be working out in a way most of its critics thought 
it would.
  But what is important now is that we work together to give permanent 
relief to this public policy train wreck for individual Americans and 
for small businesses. That is actually how we are supposed to function 
under our Constitution. Even under uniformly Democratic control, as the 
Congress and the White House were the first 2 years of this President's 
term, if things don't work out the way even the most ardent proponents 
of a piece of legislation wish and hope it will, then our job under the 
Constitution is to work together to try to provide some relief and 
solutions for the American people. That is true whether you objected to 
the law in its first instance or you simply supported it. If it turns 
out not to work as advertised, it is our job to fix it, and we can do 
so by replacing it with high-quality care that is more affordable and 
is much simpler to use. Rather than have the Federal Government dictate 
to you and your doctor what kind of care you are going to get and under 
what terms, you can, in consultation with your private doctor, make 
those decisions in the best interest of yourself and your family.
  The bigger problem is that President Obama is simply deciding which 
aspects of the law to enforce and which not to enforce, and that is 
becoming somewhat of a trend, based on political convenience and 
expediency. Time and time again he has made clear that if a law passed 
by Congress and signed by the President--whether it is him or another 
President--is unpopular among

[[Page 11471]]

his political supporters, he will simply ignore it and refuse to 
enforce it.
  Shortly after ObamaCare became law, the administration began issuing 
waivers from the annual limit requirements, which made it seem as if 
certain organizations--oftentimes labor unions--would simply be 
exempted from and would receive preferential treatment based on their 
political connections. Meanwhile, to help implement ObamaCare, the IRS 
has announced it will violate the letter of the law and issue health 
insurance subsidies through Federal exchanges, especially in those 
places where the States have declined to issue State-based exchanges, 
even though the law makes clear these subsidies can only be used for 
State exchanges.
  Let me restate that. The law says you can only use taxpayer subsidies 
for State-based exchanges, but because many States have simply said 
that this makes no sense for them and are refusing to create State-
based insurance exchanges, these individuals will now be in the Federal 
insurance exchange. And even though the law says taxpayer subsidies are 
not available for those, the IRS is papering over that provision of the 
law and simply disregarding it.
  Again, we have seen this time and time again. We saw a similar 
disregard for the rule of law during the government-run Chrysler 
bankruptcy when the company-secured bondholders received much less for 
their loans than the United Auto Workers' pension funds. Even though, 
under the law, these bondholders were entitled to the highest priority 
in terms of repayment, they were subjugated to the United Auto Workers' 
pension fund basically in an exercise of political strong-arming.
  We saw this again in the Solyndra bankruptcy. Remember that? The 
Obama administration violated the law by making taxpayers subordinate 
to private lenders. In other words, they put the taxpayers on the hook 
rather than the private lenders who helped finance Solyndra.
  More recently, the administration--and this is something that is in 
the news as recently as today--made unconstitutional recess 
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
held that the administration's argument in defense of its so-called 
``recess appointment power'' would ``eviscerate the Constitution's 
separation of powers.'' It now appears, as part of the so-called 
nuclear option negotiations, that even the White House is now being 
forced to withdraw these nominees who were unconstitutionally appointed 
and offer substitute appointees.
  We also know that the Obama administration unilaterally chose to 
waive key requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law and the 2002 law 
known as No Child Left Behind.
  A government run by waiver or by the Federal Government picking 
winners and losers is the antithesis of equal justice under the law. 
Look across the street at the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
above the entry it says: ``Equal justice under law.'' That is the very 
definition of our form of government, which is designed for a congress 
comprised of duly-elected representatives of the American people and 
the President of the United States to write legislation that applies to 
everybody and not to issue waivers or exemptions or to simply refuse to 
enforce the law because it has proven to be inconvenient or not 
politically expedient.
  The U.S. Constitution obligates the President to make sure all of our 
laws are faithfully executed. Yet, with President Obama, the pattern is 
unmistakable: inconvenient or unpopular legal requirements are 
repeatedly swept aside by Executive fiat.
  If the law is not working the way it is supposed to, the President 
should come back to Congress and say: We need to amend the law. We need 
to replace this unworkable law with one that will actually serve the 
interests of the American people.
  But we are not seeing that happen. We are seeing the White House 
decide on its own that it simply won't enforce a law. Last year, for 
example, the administration unilaterally announced a moratorium on the 
enforcement of certain immigration laws. In effect, when Congress 
failed to pass legislation the President wanted, the President himself 
simply decided not to enforce the immigration laws. As that example 
shows, this administration has frequently relied on unelected 
bureaucrats to override the people's elected representatives.
  It is simply improper and unconstitutional under our system for the 
President to decide unilaterally that he is not going to enforce the 
law. For example, when Congress refused to enact the so-called card 
check for labor unions, the administration simply turned to unelected 
bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board. And when Congress 
refused to extend cap-and-trade energy taxes, the administration turned 
to unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency to 
attempt to accomplish the same objectives indirectly that had been 
prohibited by Congress because it couldn't get a political consensus 
for doing it directly. Indeed, the President has now authorized the 
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate virtually every aspect of 
the American economy without congressional approval and without 
recourse to the American people.
  When Congress makes a mistake, when we do something the American 
people don't approve of, they get to vote us out of office if they see 
fit. That is not true with this faceless, nameless bureaucracy, which 
is rarely held accountable, and particularly when the President 
delegates to that bureaucracy the authority to regulate in so many 
areas and avoid congressional accountability and accountability at the 
White House.
  Taken together, all these measures represent a basic contempt for the 
rule of law and the normal constitutional checks and balances under 
separated powers. After witnessing the President's record over the past 
4\1/2\ years, is it any wonder why the American people and, indeed, 
Members of Congress were skeptical about his promises to enforce our 
immigration laws under the immigration bill that passed the Senate 
recently?
  Remember all of the extravagant promises that were made for border 
security, for interior enforcement, for the implementation of a 
worksite verification system, for a biometric entry-exit system to 
deter 40 percent of the illegal immigration that comes when people 
enter the country illegally and simply overstay their visas? If after 
17 years the Federal Government still isn't enforcing those laws 
already on the books, how in the world can the American people have any 
confidence whatsoever that the President and Congress can be trusted to 
enforce the laws that it passes?
  After witnessing the President's performance, I think the American 
people are deeply skeptical of his promises of future performance, and 
his selective enforcement of our existing laws undermines public 
confidence in the Federal Government.
  I believe the executive overreach I have described is corrosive to 
democratic government.
  If a Republican President had ignored these kinds of constitutional 
checks, had refused to enforce laws he didn't like, refused to defend 
in court laws he didn't like, and used Federal agencies to flout the 
will of Congress, you can be sure our friends on the other side of the 
aisle would be complaining nonstop about the imperial President. Yet 
they have largely given President Obama a pass.
  But whether you agree with the President on health care, immigration, 
energy policy, card check or other hot-button issues, we can all 
agree--we should all agree--that government should not be picking 
winners and losers and that we urgently need to restore the rule of law 
and faithful execution of those laws to their rightful place in the 
highest reaches of the Federal Government.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 11472]]


  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Maryland's Businesses

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, my good friend Congressman Steny Hoyer 
promotes America by using the phrase ``make it in America.'' The 
statement expresses the pride of our country, the ingenuity, the spirit 
of American workers, and the fact that we can compete against any 
country in the world on a level playing field. We can make it in 
America.
  I rise today to share with my fellow Senators news of my recent visit 
to Maryland businesses that are contributing to our local and national 
economy through manufacturing innovation. As part of what I call my 
``made in Maryland'' tour, I visited Volvo Group North America's 
manufacturing facility in Hagerstown, MD, and the Flying Dog Brewery in 
Frederick, MD.
  A few weeks ago I toured the Paul Reed Smith guitar factory on the 
Eastern Shore. My ``made in Maryland'' tour has highlighted many of the 
leading job creators and key small businesses that have helped revive 
Maryland's manufacturing sector. The goal was to meet employees and 
business owners, take stock of their challenges and successes, and 
identify ways the Federal Government can help them grow and innovate.
  We have highlighted the diverse products being produced in our great 
State, and we celebrate the hard-working Marylanders who have made 
these products and the companies that are providing jobs in our local 
communities.
  For example, the Paul Reed Smith guitar factory in Stevensonville, 
MD, makes high-end guitars used by some of the most prominent musicians 
in the world--including Carlos Santana. Paul Reed Smith has operated 
for nearly 30 years and now employs nearly 230 workers with revenues of 
$24 million. They are the largest private employer in Queen Anne's 
County, MD, and one of the top five employers on the upper shore.
  As a region and country, we must stay focused on creating good jobs 
at home and strengthen and continue to build our economy. Manufacturing 
is good for Maryland, and it is good for America.
  Let me tell you about my visit to Volvo Group, which employs 1,500 
people in Hagerstown, MD--accounting for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the 
region's manufacturing sector. Employees at this facility are paid 
approximately 62 percent above the average wage in the region. These 
are good jobs that people are proud to hold.
  Volvo has set the standard for environmentally aware manufacturing. 
Through its partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, Volvo has 
developed the next generation of fuel-efficient engines and trucks. 
Since 2001, Volvo has invested $330 million to upgrade and renovate 
their facilities, allowing Volvo to build a state-of-the-art engine 
development laboratory to produce increasingly fuel-efficient engines.
  This Volvo facility has shown outstanding success. Sixty of Volvo's 
trucks a day have the same emission as one truck in 1990. That is an 
amazing reduction of pollutants going into the air. In addition, the 
facility recycles 84 percent of the site's waste, and it has achieved 
an 83-percent decrease in the use of diesel fuels.
  Furthermore, Volvo remains invested in western Maryland by making 
generous contributions to local health and welfare organizations, civic 
and community organizations, art and cultural organizations, and 
education initiatives across the region. This commitment to the well-
being of Volvo employees is demonstrated by the August 2013 opening of 
an onsite Family First Pharmacy which will provide employees and their 
families innovative state-of-the-art health care to be provided by 
doctors, nurses, and pharmacists in cooperation with Walgreens.
  As the Volvo facility is highly invested in the local community and 
its numerous employees, we must remain invested in assuring this 
socially responsible company's future success.
  Later in the day I traveled to Frederick, MD, and visited the Flying 
Dog Brewery. They make a very different product than the most energy-
efficient transmissions in the world that are assembled at Volvo, but I 
recognize the same qualities in both of these unique companies and 
their employees: hard work, attention to detail, and a real pride and 
passion for the product being made. These are qualities that can never 
be outsourced.
  Small breweries such as Flying Dog have been anchors of local and 
American economies since the start of our history.
  This is a state-of-the-art facility that constantly works to perfect 
its product through innovative techniques. In addition to making a 
product whose high quality I can attest to, they are supporting 80 jobs 
and reinvesting profits back into the western Maryland community.
  When I grew up, brewing in Maryland was a huge industry. We lost most 
of it, but it is coming back. Today, the brewing industry in Maryland 
is supporting more than $13 million in wages paid and contributing 
nearly $100 million to our State's economy.
  My ``Made in Maryland'' tour was conceived to highlight manufacturing 
and innovation that is boosting our economy across our State. But I can 
tell my colleagues that agriculture, which is still our No. 1 industry, 
is being revived along the way too. During my tour of the Flying Dog 
Brewery, I met a farmer and his son who are fifth- and sixth-generation 
Frederick County family farmers celebrating the 175th year of their 
family farm. They told me their decision to begin growing barley, small 
grains, and hops for local breweries is what kept their farm going. 
They supply small grains and hops to Flying Dog and numerous Maryland 
brewing companies for many of their seasonal, locally sourced brews. 
Their farm, Amber Fields Malting and Brewing Company, in conjunction 
with Brewer's Alley Restaurant and Brewery in Frederick, MD, introduced 
Amber Fields Best Bitter, which they describe as an English-style best 
bitter. This was the first commercially brewed beer in over 100 years 
to rely exclusively on barley grown and malted in Maryland. Amber 
Fields Best Bitter and additional releases also featuring locally grown 
ingredients are available through Brewer's Alley and their sister 
brewery, Monocacy Brewing Company, both in Frederick, MD.
  America's manufacturing sector--from autos and truck manufacturing to 
beer makers and guitars--have played a major role in growing our 
economy and our Nation to be the world's leader. It has also helped 
create the strongest middle class in history. To continue in our 
recovery, we need to make sure companies such as Volvo Group, Flying 
Dog Brewery, and Paul Reed Smith Guitars, which are creating jobs and 
investing in our economy here at home, have what they need to be 
successful. Our job in Washington should be to make their job easier, 
because when they do better, we all do better.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, there has been some confusion about the 
President's health care law recently, so I come to the floor to try to 
clear up one point.
  Just before the Fourth of July holiday, the Obama administration 
admitted to the world that its health care law is not working out 
according to plan. It did it in an unusual way--in a blog post--right 
before the Fourth of July holiday, but yet it is known to the world. By 
choosing to delay the law's employer mandate, the President conceded it 
would place a tremendous burden on America's job creators.

[[Page 11473]]

  Then, just this past Sunday, the Senate majority leader went on 
``Meet the Press,'' on television, and said: ``ObamaCare has been 
wonderful for America.'' Wonderful for America? Senator Reid's comments 
demonstrate once again that Democrats in Washington--the people who 
voted for this law--are not listening to the American people.
  I hear it when I return home to Wyoming every weekend. I did this 
past weekend. I hear it as Members of the Senate do when they talk to 
friends from home. I heard it today from people from Gillette and 
Evanston and Cody that this health care law is unraveling. So I just 
want to make a couple of things clear to everyone.
  After 3\1/2\ years, we know the Obama health care law is not working. 
It is a train wreck. If the law was wonderful, it wouldn't increase 
premiums. It wouldn't shrink paychecks. It wouldn't discourage job 
creation. If the law was wonderful, we wouldn't put the feared IRS as 
the enforcer of the health care law. If the law was wonderful, the 
administration wouldn't have delayed one of its most critical parts. It 
is clear to me that even President Obama does not share Senator Reid's 
opinion that the health care law is wonderful.
  This law is not wonderful for America. It is obviously terrible for 
America's job creators. It is also terrible for many people trying to 
make a living in this country.
  There was an article on the front page of the New York Times 
recently--Wednesday, July 10--with the headline: ``At Restaurant, Delay 
Is Help on Health Law.'' The delay is a help.
  This article--front page, above the fold of the New York Times--
looked at a small Maryland restaurant called the Shanty Grille. What is 
going on at that restaurant makes the case better than any actuarial 
study, any sort of charts or any economic model ever could because it 
is a story about real people and their lives. The article talked about 
how the law was hurting everyone from the owner of the restaurant to 
the uninsured waiter, to the chef who has insurance. All of them were 
hurt by this health care law. Because for each of these people and for 
millions of others similar to them across the country, the reality of 
health care reform is that it has fallen far short of the President's 
many promises.
  According to this article in the New York Times, the restaurant's 
owner is on a pace to finally this year turn a profit. It will be the 
first profit since the economic downturn a number of years ago. Four 
years after the recession ended, he is finally set to recover and get 
back into the black. If he has to provide expensive Washington-
approved, Washington-mandated health insurance for every employee, 
though, that profit will quickly evaporate. So that would certainly 
harm this employer.
  What about the employees? Let's talk about the people this is 
designed to help. It turns out the younger workers at the restaurant 
actually aren't too interested in having this health insurance 
coverage. They say they would rather have more money in their paychecks 
so they could decide how they want to spend it, not how the President 
thinks they should spend it. So they stand to lose out once the law's 
individual mandate starts in January because they are going to have to 
go out and buy insurance which may be much more than they want or need 
or can afford.
  The employees at the restaurant who already have health insurance are 
worried too. They are concerned they will not be able to keep their 
current coverage. When the President stopped his disastrous employer 
mandate, I believe he actually made the right decision, but I have some 
doubts about his reasoning. I think this was purely for political 
reasons.
  Regardless of how and why the President made the decision, a 1-year 
delay in this one policy doesn't solve the problem; it only extends the 
problem.
  First, this restaurant and other small businesses can't afford and 
can't expand or hire more staff because they still face the mandate in 
2015. Actually, the final line in this article on the front page of the 
New York Times, when we carry over and read the end of it, says: We are 
not going to expand. ``No more expansion.''
  Second, many businesses are cutting back workers to part-time status 
because of the health care law. President Obama has had nothing to say 
to those Americans looking for full-time work but trapped in a part-
time job, and part-time is defined by the health care law, which is 
different than most Americans think of or define part-time work.
  Third, the law still requires all of the employees, as with nearly 
everyone else in America, that they have to buy pricey health insurance 
starting January 1. That is a problem for the President and he knows 
it.
  Here is how an article in Politico put it this past weekend. This 
article is entitled ``ObamaCare's Missing Mandate.'' It says:

       The massive coast-to-coast campaign to get people to sign 
     up for ObamaCare is light on mentions of one central element: 
     The widely disliked individual mandate.

  The Politico article goes on to say:

       Poll after poll has found that Americans don't like being 
     told they have to get insurance or face a penalty. So the 
     groups doing outreach don't plan to draw much attention to 
     it.

  The employer mandate has collapsed. The individual mandate is 
unpopular, so they just don't want to talk about it.
  A lot of the people who do have to buy this new Washington-mandated, 
Washington-approved insurance will have to buy it through the 
government exchanges. Of course, these may not be ready on time. There 
are 77 days left for these to be ready. Even if they are up and running 
by the deadline, we have seen ample evidence that premiums will be much 
higher than they were before the mandate. That is especially true for 
young healthy adults who the President expects to pay more in order to 
help older sicker people pay less. But a lot of younger healthier 
people are going to have to pay more for that one older sicker person.
  These weren't the kinds of reforms Democrats promised when they were 
forcing this plan through Congress on strictly party-line votes. During 
the debate, Republicans made suggestions to improve the health care 
law, but we were shut out of the backrooms where the Democrats struck 
their deals.
  In the end Democrats drafted their law so badly that the negative 
side effects and unintended consequences were inevitable. The New York 
Times article shows how some of these side effects are hurting millions 
of Americans--not just those working at the restaurant, including the 
restaurant owner, in Maryland.
  We all know President Obama likes to hold photo ops with people who 
he says are helped by the law. It is time for him to meet with people 
such as the ones featured on the front page of the New York Times--
people who are being hurt by his health care law. It is time for the 
President to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans to truly talk 
about how we can reform health care in this country. Delaying the 
employer mandate for 1 year is not enough. It doesn't eliminate the 
burdens of this costly law.
  The House is scheduled to vote this week to delay the individual 
mandate. The Senate should do the same. It is time for the President 
and for Senator Reid to listen to the victims of ObamaCare.
  President Obama was right to recognize his health care law is not 
working out. Senator Reid was totally wrong because ObamaCare is not 
wonderful for America. It is turning into a costly failure. The only 
appropriate course at this point is to permanently delay implementing 
the rest of the law and to replace it with reform that works.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate held a first of a 
series of cloture votes on controversial nominations by voting to 
invoke cloture on

[[Page 11474]]

the nominee to be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. This agency is unlike any other Federal agency. Under its 
current structure, the CFPB has very broad discretion but very little 
in terms of executive or congressional oversight.
  It is not a debate about whether Republicans in the Senate support 
consumer protection, as some would portray it. Both sides agree 
everyone benefits from a mortgage industry and marketplace free of 
fraud and other deceptive, exploitive practices.
  Republicans did not object to consumer protection when it was placed 
in each of the prudential banking regulators. In fact, bills aimed 
specifically at consumer protection passed with an overwhelming 
majority in the Senate. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act 
of 2003 passed 95 to 2, and the Credit CARD Act of 2009 passed 90 to 5.
  During the Dodd-Frank debate, the key point of contention was not the 
value of consumer protection but, rather, the Bureau's design.
  One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that we need a 
supervisory program that looks and considers how safety, soundness, and 
consumer protection work together to create a better functioning 
financial system. What Republicans have been asking for is that the 
Bureau be restructured in the same way as other similarly situated 
financial regulators, with accountability and transparency to Congress 
and to the taxpayers.
  As outlined in two letters to the President sent by Republican 
Senators in May 2011 and this past February, the changes highlighted 
are not new. In fact, they exist in the current Federal regulatory 
landscape. One of the key changes we seek is the establishment of a 
board of directors to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
with staggered terms.
  This is the structure of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, and the Federal Reserve.
  A board of directors would allow for the consideration of multiple 
viewpoints in decisionmaking and would reduce the potential for 
politicization of regulations.
  Indeed, the administration originally supported a board of directors 
for the Bureau. In 2009, the Obama administration proposed a stand-
alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency with a board of directors 
funded through the congressional appropriations process. The Bureau 
also should be subject to the congressional appropriations process, 
rather than, as the Dodd-Frank legislation did, to fund it through the 
Federal Reserve with no review by Congress.
  While Mr. Cordray stated that he would come and testify before the 
Appropriations Committee, this is quite different than Congress being 
able to oversee how the monies that the agency utilizes are spent. For 
example, the CFPB intends to spend close to $100 million to renovate 
its current headquarters. This amount is double the amount that the 
Government Services Administration has for property acquisition and 
renovation in any 1 year.
  Finally, consumer protection cannot and must not be detached from 
prudential regulation. Although the Bureau must consult with other 
prudential regulators before finalizing its rulemaking, the Bureau can 
simply disregard their advice.
  By establishing a solid safety and soundness check for prudential 
regulation, the link and coordination between prudential supervision 
and protection would be strengthened by allowing potential regulators 
to provide meaningful input into the CFPB's actions and proposals. Such 
collaboration will only strengthen our financial system, not weaken 
consumer protection.
  Without it, the CFPB and prudential regulators may issue rules that 
result in confusion for the regulated entities, as has already been the 
case with conflicting guidance for private student loans, and the many 
questions raised by the qualified mortgage final rule.
  The Dodd-Frank solution was to have the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council review certain CFPB actions, but it set the threshold at two-
thirds of the FSOC members. This very high threshold before the FSOC 
can act renders its veto virtually meaningless.
  Since the beginning of this year, I have encountered a number of 
items with the CFPB that are a cause of concern and warrant greater 
scrutiny, but it is the Federal agency's data collection initiative 
that is the most disturbing to me. Recently, we learned from press 
accounts--not from the agency but from press accounts--that the CFPB 
was spending tens of millions of dollars to collect Americans' credit 
data. We have learned from the recent IRS, Associated Press, and NSA 
scandals what happens when government agencies cross the line and watch 
our citizens instead of watching out for them. There is a trust deficit 
in government today.
  During the last several months, I have raised significant concerns 
with the CFPB's data collection efforts. I have been told that the 
Bureau needs big data to level the playing field. However, the Bureau's 
efforts go far beyond simply leveling the playing field. Unfortunately, 
for an agency that prides itself on transparency, I have encountered 
very little concrete answers to very basic questions.
  For example, I have asked the Bureau on three occasions to give me 
information on the number of Americans' credit accounts that the CFPB 
is currently monitoring. In response, the CFPB said the information was 
confidential and could not be supplied.
  Information coming from last week's hearing in the House Financial 
Services Committee indicates that the CFPB is undertaking unprecedented 
data collection on possibly hundreds of millions of Americans' 
accounts, possibly as many as 900 million credit card accounts in the 
United States. The size of this data collection and the amount of money 
being spent by the agency are a cause of concern and should be for 
those Americans whose financial and credit data is being sent to the 
Bureau each and every single month.
  The CFPB is collecting credit card account data, bank account data, 
mortgage data, and student loan data. In addition, the Bureau has hired 
third parties to act as its agent to collect, aggregate, and produce 
consumer credit data on behalf of the agency. Some contracts even 
contain instructions to follow specific consumer accounts over time.
  This ultimately allows the CFPB to monitor, on a monthly basis, an 
individual consumer's financial activity. Some of the data collected 
and provided to the CFPB monthly includes account balances, ZIP Code+4 
location data, the year of birth, and other demographic information. 
Thus, the CFPB can know how much you owe, how much money you have, how 
much you pay each month, and where you live within a few blocks.
  The Bureau has stated publicly on several occasions that it does not 
collect personally identifiable information other than the voluntary 
personally identifiable information consumers submit to the Consumer 
Complaint Database and in supervisory exams. However, two documents 
drafted by the CFPB seem to raise doubts about this Federal agency's 
actions.
  Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the CFPB's System of Records 
Notice of November 2012 for the consumer and market research database 
states that some of the collected data ``will be personally 
identifiable information.'' In addition, a CFPB contract with a third 
party data aggregator states:

       Most, if not all, of the data will be confidential 
     supervisory information, and some of the data will contain 
     sensitive Personal Identifiable Information (PII).

  Questions still remain about what type of personal information is 
collected by the CFPB and what is collected by the agency's 
contractors. But without the structural changes to the agency that we 
are asking for, it is hard to get answers to the question.
  At the hearing in the House last week, a CFPB official was unable to 
state how many agency employees have access to this enormous amount of 
credit data. He was also unaware of any law which is used when 
employees access the data.

[[Page 11475]]

  I also question whether the Bureau has put in proper policies and 
procedures to prevent the data from being reengineered and reverse 
engineered. I consider these to be very serious privacy concerns by the 
very agency that was created to watch out for consumers, not to watch 
consumers.
  Banks constantly worry about cyber attacks. Recent news reports have 
run stories about the Federal Reserve and the IRS being susceptible to 
cyber attacks.
  What assurances do we have from the CFPB that these massive troves of 
consumer credit information are safe? Data safety is particularly of 
concern, given that both the GAO and the CFPB's inspector general have 
found weaknesses in the CFPB data security programs and policies.
  Because I was unable to get sufficient answers out of the CFPB, I 
turned to the Government Accountability Office and requested that it 
look into the agency's data collection and security efforts. That 
review is now underway.
  With regard to the regulatory role of the agency, in the past 2 years 
the Bureau has issued numerous new rulemakings, resulting in 
significant cumulative burdens for affected institutions, especially 
small and community banks that often only have a handful of employees. 
Remember, there is no board directing this agency. There is no board to 
whom the Director of the agency responds. One single individual has 
been given the authority in this statute, without oversight by Congress 
of his or her budget, to single-handedly issue rules and regulations.
  In the span of 10 days this past January, the CFPB issued more than 
3,500 pages of final rules affecting mortgage markets and other 
industries. This represents more than 1 million total words of 
regulatory text. When I asked at an April hearing about the 
overwhelming number of regulations the Bureau issued in 1 single month, 
I was told that there were ``less than 100 pages of rules'' when 
translated into the Federal Register.
  Well, 100 pages of rules is a lot, but this ignores the more than 
2,500 pages of guidance, analysis, and interpretations--which are all 
admissible in court--and all of which are required reading for anyone 
who has to comply with this complex web of rules.
  In order to understand and comply with these regulations, 
institutions are forced to hire lawyers and compliance officers, tying 
up resources that could be better spent on growing business, creating 
jobs, and boosting the economy. Again, recall that the connection 
between safety and soundness regulations was severed with the creation 
of this agency.
  Instead, these additional compliance costs are inevitably passed on 
to the consumers, which is especially harmful during a time of high 
unemployment and sluggish economic growth. If we were convinced that 
the agency was at least protecting consumers rather than collecting 
data on all individual Americans who have credit cards, student loans, 
mortgages, or bank accounts, then perhaps we could at least engage in a 
discussion or a debate about whether the agency's actions are 
appropriate and effective.
  I am concerned that without the strong cost-benefit analysis and 
input from the small business panels in crafting rules, even well-
intentioned rules could make consumer credit more expensive and less 
affordable.
  Another concern I have with the CFPB is the enactment of policy 
changes outside of the established notice-and-comment rulemaking 
process.
  In March, the CFPB posted a legal bulletin on its blog instructing 
auto lenders to adjust compensation practices to avoid violating fair 
lending laws. The bulletin includes significant legal interpretations 
and suggests that the Bureau may utilize its enforcement powers to 
ensure that lenders adhere to its guidance.
  The only example the CFPB uses in this bulletin on how auto lenders 
can effectively comply with fair lending laws is flat pricing, as is 
interpreted by many, that any other type of pricing will be a clear 
violation in the CFPB's eyes. If the CFPB intends to make major policy 
changes, then it needs to go through a regular notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, not a blog post.
  This bulletin also, frankly, represents a backdoor attempt by the 
CFPB to regulate auto dealers, a group that is explicitly exempted from 
the CFPB's regulatory purview by the Dodd-Frank legislation that 
created the agency, in what appears to be yet another example of CFPB's 
overreach.
  In conclusion, I will continue to work toward oversight of the agency 
to ensure accountability and transparency for the American people. 
Those who are trying to paint our demands as being extraordinary need 
to look at the extraordinary data collection and actions of this agency 
and look at our regulatory landscape with similarly situated financial 
regulators.
  Those who are trying to portray these demands as another attempt to 
water down consumer protection need to realize that consumer protection 
divested from safety and soundness does not make for a better financial 
system or for greater benefit to consumers.
  We found in our review of the CFPB that the agency does have serious 
problems in a number of different areas. The lack of prompt and 
complete responses from the agency regarding its big data collection of 
Americans' credit accounts is very troubling but is indicative of the 
lack of transparency established when this agency was created.
  The expenditure of nearly $100 million for building renovations is 
extremely troubling in these tight economic times.
  While the confirmation of the nominee is now all but certain, there 
remains significant work and oversight to ensure the CFPB is an 
accountable agency and that it is transparent in its actions for all 
Americans to see.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, did my friend from Idaho suggest the absence 
of a quorum?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, he did not.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will talk for a minute about the National 
Labor Relations Board nominees.
  The NLRB has helped to protect the rights and safety of workers for 
about 80 years. It is a vitally important watchdog for working 
Americans. It is also important for employers. It also protects 
employers. But unless we act before the Senate recess in August, the 
NLRB will lose its ability to operate. It will fail to have a quorum so 
it can't work or be effective. So the confirmation of full membership 
at the NLRB is a priority.
  I understand Republican Senators were frustrated by President Obama's 
recess appointment of two members to the NLRB. I accept that. No one 
has raised any questions, however, about these two good people--Griffin 
and Block. They are fine public servants and the record should be 
spread with that fact. Republicans have insisted on the President's 
nominating new people, and he has done that. It is a right they have, 
and this is a compromise that was reached.
  Republican Senators have also committed that the Senate will confirm 
these new nominees quickly, certainly before the end of this month--the 
month of July. To that end, I met earlier with Senators Harkin and 
Lamar Alexander, the chairman and ranking member of that big HELP 
Committee, and they have given me their word they are going to file a 
notice tonight that the committee will hold a hearing on these nominees 
on Tuesday, they will then have a markup on Wednesday, and we intend to 
turn to these nominees next Thursday.
  I have talked with the people at the White House, and I am confident 
these nominees will be staunch advocates for the NLRB--for the rights 
and safety of workers, and for employers that are also protected with 
this legislation. So when the Senate confirms them, the NLRB will once 
again have a full team to protect the rights of workers--the workers in 
West Virginia, workers in Nevada, and all over the country--the same 
thing they have done for 80 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions with 
respect to Calendar Nos. 100, 101, and 104 be withdrawn; that the vote 
on the confirmation of the Cordray nomination

[[Page 11476]]

occur at 5 p.m. today; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; and President Obama be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that the vote on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the Hochberg nomination occur at 10 
a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, July 17.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Richard Cordray, of Ohio, to be Director, Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection?
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Ex.]

                                YEAS--66

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Under the previous order, the 
motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and 
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________