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
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
How Senate Republicans Want to Change the Tax Breaks in Trump's Big Bill
House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches to the tax cuts they want to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers disagree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. They also disagree on issues such as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym memberships and whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can finalize a bill. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: Tax break for families: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts it to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years –– roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump campaign promises: Trump promised during the campaign that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits. He also said he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of overtime a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer, and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the US. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. More SALT: The caps on state and local tax deductions (known in Washington as the SALT cap) now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California, and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number in the coming weeks that both sides can accept. Medicaid providers: The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes are now effectively capped at six percent. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) until it reaches 3.5 percent in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning, and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' Tax breaks for business: The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce. Clean energy tax credits: Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. Odds and ends: The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for electric vehicle owners and $100 for hybrid owners, which would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Japan scraps US meeting after Washington demands more defense spending: Report
WASHINGTON: Japan has canceled a regular high-level meeting with its key ally the United States after the Trump administration demanded it spend more on defense, the Financial Times reported on Friday. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been expected to meet Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani in Washington on July 1 for the annual 2+2 security talks. But Tokyo scrapped the meeting after the US asked Japan to boost defense spending to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, higher than an earlier request of 3 percent, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter. Japan's Nikkei newspaper reported on Saturday that President Donald Trump's government was demanding that its Asian allies, including Japan, spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. A US official who asked not to be identified told Reuters that Japan had 'postponed' the talks in a decision made several weeks ago. The official did not cite a reason. A non-government source familiar with the issue said he had also heard Japan had pulled out of the meeting but not the reason for it doing so. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said she had no comment on the FT report when asked about it at regular briefing. The Pentagon also had no immediate comment. Japan's embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. The nation's foreign and defense ministries and the Prime Minister's Office did not answer phone calls seeking comment outside business hours on Saturday. The FT said the higher spending demand was made in recent weeks by Elbridge Colby, the third-most senior Pentagon official, who has also recently upset another key US ally in the Indo-Pacific by launching a review of a project to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. In March, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that other nations do not decide Japan's defense budget after Colby, in his nomination hearing to be under secretary of defense for policy, called for Tokyo to spend more to counter China. Japan and other US allies have been engaged in difficult trade talks with the United States over President Donald Trump's worldwide tariff offensive. The FT said the decision to cancel the July 1 meeting was also related to Japan's July 20 upper house elections, expected to be a major test for Ishiba's minority coalition government. Japan's move on the 2+2 comes ahead of a meeting of the US-led NATO alliance in Europe next week, at which Trump is expected to press his demand that European allies boost their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Pro-Palestinian protest leader released from US custody
Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student who was one of the most visible leaders of nationwide pro-Palestinian campus protests, was released Friday from a federal detention center. Khalil, a legal permanent resident in the United States who is married to a US citizen and has a US-born son, had been in custody since March facing potential deportation. 'This shouldn't have taken three months,' Khalil, wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf, told US media outside an immigration detention center in Jena, Louisiana, hours after a federal judge ordered his release. '(President Donald) Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this,' he said. 'There's no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide.' For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app: The Department of Homeland Security criticized District Judge Michael Farbiarz's ruling Friday as an example of how 'out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining our national security.' Under the terms of his release, Khalil will not be allowed to leave the United States except for 'self-deportation,' and faces restrictions on where he can travel within the country. Khalil's wife, Michigan-born dentist Noor Abdalla, said her family could now 'finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home.' 'We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians,' added Abdalla, who gave birth to the couple's first child while her husband was in detention. Since his March 8 arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Khalil has become a symbol of Trump's campaign to stifle pro-Palestinian student activism against the Gaza war, in the name of curbing anti-Semitism. At the time a graduate student at Columbia University in New York, Khalil was a prominent leader of nationwide campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Following his arrest, US authorities transferred Khalil—who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents—nearly 2,000 kilometers (1,242 miles) from his home in New York to the detention center in Louisiana, pending deportation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a law approved during the 1950s Red Scare that allows the United States to remove foreigners seen as adverse to US foreign policy. Rubio argues that US constitutional protections of free speech do not apply to foreigners and that he alone can make decisions without judicial review. Hundreds of students have seen their visas revoked, with some saying they were targeted for everything from writing opinion articles to minor arrest records. Farbiarz ruled last week that the government could not detain or deport Khalil based on Rubio's assertions that his presence on US soil poses a national security threat. The government has also alleged as grounds to detain and deport Khalil that there were inaccuracies in his application for permanent residency. Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which is among the groups representing Khalil, welcomed the release order. 'This is an important step in vindicating Mr. Khalil's rights as he continues to be unlawfully targeted by the federal government for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights,' Sinha said.
