Senate Parliamentarian Deals Blow to GOP Plan to Gut Consumer Bureau in Tax Bill
Republicans have suffered a sizable setback on one key aspect of President Donald Trump's big bill after their plans to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other provisions from the Senate Banking Committee ran into procedural violations with the Senate parliamentarian.
Republicans in the Senate proposed zeroing-out funding for the CFPB–the landmark agency set up in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis–to save $6.4 billion. The bureau had been designed as a way to better protect Americans from financial fraud, but has been opposed by many GOP lawmakers since its inception. The Trump administration has targeted the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach.
The findings by the Senate parliamentarian's office–which is working overtime scrubbing Trump's overall bill to ensure it aligns with the chamber's strict Byrd Rule processes–signal a tough road ahead. The most daunting questions are still to come as GOP leadership rushes to muscle Trump's signature package to the floor for votes by his Fourth of July deadline.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the chairman of the Banking Committee that drafted the provisions in question, said in a statement, 'My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee's provisions.'
For Democrats, who have been fighting Trump's 1,000-page package at every step, the parliamentarian's advisory amounted to a significant win. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee who engineered the creation of the CFPB before she was elected to Congress.
Warren said that GOP proposals are 'a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers' and would lead to more Americans being 'tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.'
The parliamentarian's rulings, while advisory, are rarely, if ever, ignored. With the majority in Congress, Republicans have been drafting a sweeping package that extends some $4.5 trillion in tax cuts Trump approved during his first term in 2017 that otherwise expire at the end of the year. It adds $350 billion to national security, including billions for Trump's mass deportation agenda. And it slashes some $1 trillion from Medicaid, food stamps, and other government programs.
All told, the package is estimated to add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's review of the House-passed package, which is now undergoing revisions in the Senate.
The parliamentarian's office is responsible for determining if the package adheres to the Byrd Rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was considered one of the masters of Senate procedure. The rule essentially bars policy matters from being addressed in the budget reconciliation process.
Senate GOP leaders are using the budget reconciliation process–which is increasingly how big bills move through the Congress–because it allows passage on a simple majority vote rather than face a filibuster with the higher sixty-vote threshold. But if any of the bill's provisions violate the Byrd Rule, that means they can be challenged at the tougher sixty-vote threshold, which is a tall order in the 53-47 Senate. Leaders are often forced to strip those proposals from the package, even though doing so risks losing support from lawmakers who championed those provisions.
One of the biggest questions ahead for the parliamentarian will be over the Senate GOP's proposal to use current policy, as opposed to current law, to determine the baseline budget and whether the overall package adds significantly to deficits.
Already, the Senate parliamentarian's office has waded through several titles of Trump's big bill, including those from the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Energy & Public Works Committee. The Banking panel offered a modest bill–just eight pages–and much of it was deemed out of compliance.
The parliamentarian found that, in addition to gutting the CFPB, other provisions aimed at rolling back entities put in place after the 2008 financial crisis would violate the Byrd Rule. Those include a GOP provision to limit the Financial Research Fund, which was set up to conduct analysis, saving nearly $300 million, and another to shift the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which conducts oversight of accounting firms, to the Securities and Exchange Commission and terminate positions, saving $773 million.
The GOP plan to change the pay schedule for employees at the Federal Reserve, saving $1.4 billion, was also determined to be in violation of the Byrd Rule.
The parliamentarian's office also raised Byrd Rule violations over GOP proposals to repeal certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including on emission standards for some model year 2027 light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
24 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
San Diego Clergy Visit Federal Immigration Court to Bear Witness During Crackdown on Migrants
About a dozen religious leaders from the San Diego area visited federal immigration court Friday to serve as witnesses to what goes down as some cases arising from the Trump administration's migration crackdown are heard, an organizer said. Some migrants have been arrested at the court by federal immigration officers. The Rev. Scott Santarosa, a Jesuit priest who was lead organizer of the group, said the purpose of the visitation 'is more than anything just to provide some sense of presence.' 'People are longing for people of faith to walk with vulnerable migrants,' added Santarosa, the pastor of San Diego's Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. 'Our goal is not trying to prevent arrests – but we can witness it.' The visit was preceded by a Mass at San Diego's Catholic Cathedral with bishops and other clergy – including Bishop Michael Pham, the top-ranking official in the group and one of the first bishops to be appointed by Pope Leo XIV after his election as pontiff – offering prayers for refugees and migrants on World Refugee Day. Pham himself is a refugee; he came to the US unaccompanied as a boy from Vietnam. The idea for the court visit started during a diocese-wide call to plan events for World Refugee Day, in addition to each church holding a Mass to pray for migrants and refugees, Santarosa said. The priest said he hopes that visiting the court helps migrant communities – both more recent arrivals and those without legal status to be in the country who have lived in the San Diego area for decades. 'They're feeling like people just want them to disappear,' Santarosa said, adding that a woman told him in Spanish: 'Father, we feel as if we were hunted, as if we were animals.'
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal exceptions to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure – a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates – appear dimmer because two House Republicans voted against the bill and ten others were absent. In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, 'makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership.' Democratic lawmakers argued the same during the bill's passage through the legislature. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course, and cannot suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen Second Amendment rights and the safety of law-abiding citizens. Permitless carry is already lawful in twenty-nine states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill 'takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin.' The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive these benefits. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law – enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto – that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes, the law 'is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars forty-eight hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures, with dozens picketing across the street from the Executive Mansion earlier this week. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Court Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Schools to Post Ten Commandments in Classrooms
A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional. The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students–especially those who are not Christian. The mandate has been touted by Republicans including President Donald Trump and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of US law. The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit. 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the US Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. 'The appeals court's rulings interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. 'Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit and that she would seek to appeal the ruling. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. The court's ruling backs an order issued last fall by US District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the US Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government. In 1980, the US Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which says Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
