{ "id": "R45073", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45073", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 585036, "date": "2018-06-06", "retrieved": "2018-09-12T22:49:00.049930", "title": "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 115-174) and Selected Policy Issues", "summary": "Some observers assert the financial crisis of 2007-2009 revealed that excessive risk had built up in the financial system, and that weaknesses in regulation contributed to that buildup and the resultant instability. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203; the Dodd-Frank Act), and regulators strengthened rules under existing authority. Following this broad overhaul of financial regulation, some observers argue certain changes are an overcorrection, resulting in unduly burdensome regulation. \nThe Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155, P.L. 115-174) was signed into law by President Donald Trump on May 24, 2018. P.L. 115-174 modifies Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker Rule (a ban on proprietary trading and certain relationships with investment funds), the qualified mortgage criteria under the Ability-to-Repay Rule, and enhanced regulation for large banks; provides smaller banks with an \u201coff ramp\u201d from Basel III capital requirements\u2014standards agreed to by national bank regulators as part of an international bank regulatory framework; and makes other changes to the regulatory system. \nMost changes made by P.L. 115-174 can be grouped into one of five issue areas: (1) mortgage lending, (2) regulatory relief for \u201ccommunity\u201d banks, (3) consumer protection, (4) regulatory relief for large banks, and (5) regulatory relief for capital formation. \nTitle I of P.L. 115-174 relaxes or provides exemptions to certain mortgage lending rules. For example, it creates a new compliance option for mortgages originated and held by banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets to be considered qualified mortgages for the purposes of the Ability-to-Repay Rule. In addition, P.L. 115-174 exempts certain insured depositories and credit unions that originate few mortgages from certain Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reporting requirements. \nA number of Title II provisions provide regulatory relief to community banks. For example, banks with under $10 billion in assets are exempt from the Volcker Rule, and certain banks that meet a new Community Bank Leverage Ratio are exempt from other risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements. \nTitle III enhances consumer protections in targeted areas. For example, it subjects credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to additional requirements, including requirements to generally provide fraud alerts for consumer files for at least a year and to allow consumers to place security freezes on their credit reports. In addition, it requires CRAs to exclude certain medical debt from veterans\u2019 credit reports.\nTitle IV alters the criteria used to determine which banks are subject to enhanced prudential regulation from the original $50 billion asset threshold original set by Dodd-Frank. Banks designated as global systemically important banks and banks with more than $250 billion in assets are still automatically subjected to enhanced regulation. However, under P.L. 115-174 banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets are automatically subject only to supervisory stress tests, while the Federal Reserve (Fed) has discretion to apply other individual enhanced prudential provisions to these banks. Banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion will no longer be subject to enhanced regulation, except for the risk committee requirement. In addition, P.L. 115-174 relaxes leverage requirements for large custody banks, and allows certain municipal bonds to be counted toward large banks\u2019 liquidity requirements.\nTitle V provides regulatory relief to certain securities regulations to encourage capital formation. For example, it exempts more securities exchanges from state securities regulation and subjects certain investment pools to fewer registration and disclosure requirements.\nTitle VI provides enhanced consumer protection for borrowers of student loans. For example, it requires CRA to exclude certain defaulted private student loan debt from credit reports.\nProponents of P.L. 115-174 assert it provides necessary and targeted regulatory relief, fosters economic growth, and provides increased consumer protections. Opponents of the legislation argue it needlessly pares back important Dodd-Frank protections to the benefit of large and profitable banks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45073", "sha1": "b840d403f857d3fa2d3b021353af95cc612880c9", "filename": "files/20180606_R45073_b840d403f857d3fa2d3b021353af95cc612880c9.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180606_R45073_images_e81d4ca07e96d52fca7918d546c6fb9be70bba00.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180606_R45073_images_26b7443f32b87622c0a447919622a18ce2e023c8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45073", "sha1": "446c87a3d8f9e0b28b7626edb70836673623f39c", "filename": "files/20180606_R45073_446c87a3d8f9e0b28b7626edb70836673623f39c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4775, "name": "Consumer Finance Protection" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4776, "name": "Housing Finance" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4898, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 580766, "date": "2018-04-12", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T10:41:26.910464", "title": "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) and Selected Policy Issues", "summary": "Some observers assert the financial crisis of 2007-2009 revealed that excessive risk had built up in the financial system, and that weaknesses in regulation contributed to that buildup and the resultant instability. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203; the Dodd-Frank Act), and regulators strengthened rules under existing authority. Following this broad overhaul of financial regulation, some observers argue certain changes are an overcorrection, resulting in unduly burdensome regulation. \nThe Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) was passed by the Senate on March 14, 2018, and sent to the House. S. 2155 would modify Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker Rule (a ban on proprietary trading and certain relationships with investment funds), the qualified mortgage criteria under the Ability-to-Repay Rule, and enhanced regulation for large banks; provide smaller banks with an \u201coff ramp\u201d from Basel III capital requirements\u2014standards agreed to by national bank regulators as part of an international bank regulatory framework; and make other changes to the regulatory system. \nMost changes proposed by S. 2155 can be grouped into one of five issue areas: (1) mortgage lending, (2) regulatory relief for \u201ccommunity\u201d banks, (3) consumer protection, (4) regulatory relief for large banks, and (5) regulatory relief in securities markets. \nTitle I of S. 2155 aims to relax or provide exemptions to certain mortgage lending rules. For example, it would create a new compliance option for mortgages originated and held by banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets to be considered qualified mortgages for the purposes of the Ability-to-Repay Rule. In addition, insured depositories and credit unions that originated few mortgages would be exempt from certain Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reporting requirements. \nA number of Title II provisions are intended to provide regulatory relief to community banks. For example, banks with under $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the Volcker Rule, and certain banks that meet a new Community Bank Leverage Ratio would be exempt from existing risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements. \nTitle III would enhance consumer protection in targeted areas. For example, it would subject credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to additional requirements, including requirements to generally provide fraud alerts for consumer files for at least a year and to allow consumers to place security freezes on their credit reports. In addition, CRAs would have to exclude certain medical debt from veterans\u2019 credit reports.\nTitle IV would alter the criteria used to determine which banks are subject to enhanced prudential regulation. Banks designated as global systemically important banks and banks with more than $250 billion in assets would still be automatically subjected to enhanced regulation. Banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets would be subject only to supervisory stress tests, and the Federal Reserve (Fed) would have discretion to apply other individual enhanced prudential provisions to these banks. Banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion would no longer be subject to enhanced regulation, except for the risk committee requirement. In addition, leverage requirements would be relaxed for large custody banks, and certain municipal bonds would be allowed to count toward large banks\u2019 liquidity requirements.\nTitle V would provide regulatory relief to certain securities regulations to encourage capital formation. For example, more securities exchanges would be exempt from state securities regulation and certain investment pools would be subject to fewer registration and disclosure requirements.\nTitle VI would provide enhanced consumer protection for borrowers of student loans. For example, CRAs would have to exclude certain defaulted private student loan debt from consumers\u2019 credit reports.\nProponents of S. 2155 assert it would provide necessary and targeted regulatory relief, foster economic growth, and provide increased consumer protections. Opponents of the bill argue it would needlessly pare back important Dodd-Frank protections to the benefit of large and profitable banks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45073", "sha1": "ebaeb88a998d38d8809484e6f4da507f356d7140", "filename": "files/20180412_R45073_ebaeb88a998d38d8809484e6f4da507f356d7140.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180412_R45073_images_e81d4ca07e96d52fca7918d546c6fb9be70bba00.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180412_R45073_images_26b7443f32b87622c0a447919622a18ce2e023c8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45073", "sha1": "33edfcffe7f0fac0b9c3a4b87fc3d1f07137b393", "filename": "files/20180412_R45073_33edfcffe7f0fac0b9c3a4b87fc3d1f07137b393.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4775, "name": "Consumer Finance Protection" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4776, "name": "Housing Finance" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4898, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 579214, "date": "2018-03-05", "retrieved": "2018-04-03T13:46:56.308699", "title": "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) and Selected Policy Issues", "summary": "Some observers assert the financial crisis of 2007-2009 revealed that excessive risk had built up in the financial system, and that weaknesses in regulation contributed to that buildup and the resultant instability. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203; the Dodd-Frank Act), and regulators strengthened rules under existing authority. Following this broad overhaul of financial regulation, some observers argue certain changes are an overcorrection, resulting in unduly burdensome regulation. \nThe Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) was reported by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on December 18, 2017. S. 2155 would modify Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker Rule (a ban on proprietary trading and certain relationships with investment funds), the qualified mortgage criteria under the Ability-to-Repay Rule, and enhanced regulation for large banks; provide smaller banks with an \u201coff ramp\u201d from Basel III capital requirements\u2014standards agreed to by national bank regulators as part of an international bank regulatory framework; and make other changes to the regulatory system. Most changes proposed by S. 2155 as reported can be grouped into one of four issue areas: (1) mortgage lending, (2) regulatory relief for \u201ccommunity\u201d banks, (3) credit reporting, and (4) regulatory relief for large banks. \nTitle I of S. 2155 aims to relax or provide exemptions to certain mortgage lending rules. For example, it would create a new compliance option for mortgages originated and held by banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets to be considered qualified mortgages for the purposes of the Ability-to-Repay Rule. In addition, depositories that originated few mortgages would be exempt from certain reporting requirements. Certain mortgages under $400,000 would be exempt from certain appraisal requirements.\nA number of Title II provisions are intended to provide regulatory relief to community banks. For example, banks with under $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the Volcker Rule and from existing risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements, provided they meet a Community Bank Leverage Ratio. Banks under $5 billion would face reduced reporting requirements. The asset-size threshold at which banks become subject to less frequent examination and at which bank holding companies become exempt from the same capital requirements as depository subsidiaries (known as the \u201cCollins Amendment\u201d) would be raised from $1 billion to $3 billion.\nTitle III provisions would subject credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to additional requirements, including requirements to generally provide fraud alerts for consumer files for at least a year and to allow consumers to place security freezes on their credit reports. In addition, CRAs would have to exclude certain defaulted private student loan debt from consumers\u2019 credit reports and certain medical debt from veterans\u2019 credit reports.\nTitle IV would alter the criteria used to determine which banks are subject to enhanced prudential regulation, releasing certain banks from the regime. Banks designated as globally systemically important banks and banks with more than $250 billion in assets would still be automatically subjected to enhanced regulation. Banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets would be subject only to supervisory stress tests, and the Fed would have discretion to apply other individual enhanced prudential provisions to these banks. Banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion would no longer be subject to enhanced regulation, except for the risk committee requirement. In addition, leverage requirements would be relaxed for large custody banks, and certain municipal bonds would be allowed to count toward large banks\u2019 liquidity requirements.\nProponents of S. 2155 assert it would provide necessary and targeted regulatory relief, foster economic growth, and provide increased consumer protections. Opponents of the bill argue it would needlessly pare back important Dodd-Frank protections to the benefit of large and profitable banks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45073", "sha1": "3414ac3e10a5e0e5689ff7d24882f7af70e5eae7", "filename": "files/20180305_R45073_3414ac3e10a5e0e5689ff7d24882f7af70e5eae7.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180305_R45073_images_e81d4ca07e96d52fca7918d546c6fb9be70bba00.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180305_R45073_images_26b7443f32b87622c0a447919622a18ce2e023c8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45073", "sha1": "759820e3e98393e7a33620b58a71687c75de9137", "filename": "files/20180305_R45073_759820e3e98393e7a33620b58a71687c75de9137.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4775, "name": "Consumer Finance Protection" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4776, "name": "Housing Finance" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4898, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577884, "date": "2018-01-25", "retrieved": "2018-01-30T14:03:56.527615", "title": "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) and Selected Policy Issues", "summary": "Some observers assert the financial crisis of 2007-2009 revealed that excessive risk had built up in the financial system, and that weaknesses in regulation contributed to that buildup and the resultant instability. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203; the Dodd-Frank Act), and regulators strengthened rules under existing authority. Following this broad overhaul of financial regulation, some observers argue certain changes are an overcorrection, resulting in unduly burdensome regulation. \nThe Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) was reported by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on December 18, 2017. S. 2155 would modify Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker Rule (a ban on proprietary trading and certain relationships with investment funds), the qualified mortgage criteria under the Ability-to-Repay Rule, and enhanced regulation for large banks; provide smaller banks with an \u201coff ramp\u201d from Basel III capital requirements\u2014standards agreed to by national bank regulators as part of an international bank regulatory framework; and make other changes to the regulatory system. Most changes proposed by S. 2155 as reported can be grouped into one of four issue areas: (1) mortgage lending, (2) regulatory relief for \u201ccommunity\u201d banks, (3) credit reporting, and (4) regulatory relief for large banks. \nTitle I of S. 2155 aims to relax or provide exemptions to certain mortgage lending rules. For example, it would create a new compliance option for mortgages originated and held by banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets to be considered qualified mortgages for the purposes of the Ability-to-Repay Rule. In addition, depositories that originated few mortgages would be exempt from certain reporting requirements. Certain mortgages under $400,000 would be exempt from certain appraisal requirements.\nA number of Title II provisions are intended to provide regulatory relief to community banks. For example, banks with under $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the Volcker Rule and from existing risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements, provided they meet a Community Bank Leverage Ratio. Banks under $5 billion would face reduced reporting requirements. The asset-size threshold at which banks become subject to less frequent examination and at which bank holding companies become exempt from the same capital requirements as depository subsidiaries (known as the \u201cCollins Amendment\u201d) would be raised from $1 billion to $3 billion.\nTitle III provisions would subject credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to additional requirements, including requirements to generally provide fraud alerts for consumer files for at least a year and to allow consumers to place security freezes on their credit reports. In addition, CRAs would have to exclude certain defaulted private student loan debt from consumers\u2019 credit reports and certain medical debt from veterans\u2019 credit reports.\nTitle IV would alter the criteria used to determine which banks are subject to enhanced prudential regulation, releasing certain banks from the regime. Banks designated as globally systemically important banks and banks with more than $250 billion in assets would still be automatically subjected to enhanced regulation. Banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets would be subject only to supervisory stress tests, and the Fed would have discretion to apply other individual enhanced prudential provisions to these banks. Banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion would no longer be subject to enhanced regulation, except for the risk committee requirement. In addition, leverage requirements would be relaxed for large custody banks, and certain municipal bonds would be allowed to count toward large banks\u2019 liquidity requirements.\nProponents of S. 2155 assert it would provide necessary and targeted regulatory relief, foster economic growth, and provide increased consumer protections. Opponents of the bill argue it would needlessly pare back important Dodd-Frank protections to the benefit of large and profitable banks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45073", "sha1": "915c66c045cae67efb3083d5fa4f499af1376aed", "filename": "files/20180125_R45073_915c66c045cae67efb3083d5fa4f499af1376aed.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180125_R45073_images_e81d4ca07e96d52fca7918d546c6fb9be70bba00.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180125_R45073_images_26b7443f32b87622c0a447919622a18ce2e023c8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45073", "sha1": "39540fd5fb1a4000b80b6c7ab1bc52cf575bd72b", "filename": "files/20180125_R45073_39540fd5fb1a4000b80b6c7ab1bc52cf575bd72b.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4775, "name": "Consumer Finance Protection" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4776, "name": "Housing Finance" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4898, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577554, "date": "2018-01-10", "retrieved": "2018-01-16T23:11:57.945802", "title": "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) and Selected Policy Issues", "summary": "Some observers assert the financial crisis of 2007-2009 revealed that excessive risk had built up in the financial system, and that weaknesses in regulation contributed to that buildup and the resultant instability. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203; the Dodd-Frank Act), and regulators strengthened rules under existing authority. Following this broad overhaul of financial regulation, some observers argue certain changes are an overcorrection, resulting in unduly burdensome regulation. \nThe Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) was reported by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on December 18, 2017. S. 2155 would modify Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker Rule (a ban on proprietary trading and certain relationships with investment funds), the qualified mortgage criteria under the Ability-to-Repay Rule, and enhanced regulation for large banks; provide smaller banks with an \u201coff ramp\u201d from Basel III capital requirements\u2014standards agreed to by national bank regulators as part of an international bank regulatory framework; and make other changes to the regulatory system. Most changes proposed by S. 2155 as reported can be grouped into one of four issue areas: (1) mortgage lending, (2) regulatory relief for \u201ccommunity\u201d banks, (3) credit reporting, and (4) regulatory relief for large banks. \nTitle I of S. 2155 aims to relax or provide exemptions to certain mortgage lending rules. For example, it would create a new compliance option for mortgages originated and held by banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets to be considered qualified mortgages for the purposes of the Ability-to-Repay Rule. In addition, depositories that originated few mortgages would be exempt from certain reporting requirements. Certain mortgages under $400,000 would be exempt from certain appraisal requirements.\nA number of Title II provisions are intended to provide regulatory relief to community banks. For example, banks with under $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the Volcker Rule and from existing risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio requirements, provided they meet a Community Bank Leverage Ratio. Banks under $5 billion would face reduced reporting requirements. The asset-size threshold at which banks become subject to less frequent examination and at which bank holding companies become exempt from the same capital requirements as depository subsidiaries (known as the \u201cCollins Amendment\u201d) would be raised from $1 billion to $3 billion.\nTitle III provisions would subject credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to additional requirements, including requirements to generally provide fraud alerts for consumer files for at least a year and to allow consumers to place security freezes on their credit reports. In addition, CRAs would have to exclude certain defaulted private student loan debt from consumers\u2019 credit reports and certain medical debt from veterans\u2019 credit reports.\nTitle IV would alter the criteria used to determine which banks are subject to enhanced prudential regulation, releasing certain banks from the regime. Banks designated as globally systemically important banks and banks with more than $250 billion in assets would still be automatically subjected to enhanced regulation. Banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets would be subject only to supervisory stress tests, and the Fed would have discretion to apply other individual enhanced prudential provisions to these banks. Banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion would no longer be subject to enhanced regulation, except for the risk committee requirement. In addition, leverage requirements would be relaxed for large custody banks, and certain municipal bonds would be allowed to count toward large banks\u2019 liquidity requirements.\nProponents of S. 2155 assert it would provide necessary and targeted regulatory relief, foster economic growth, and provide increased consumer protections. Opponents of the bill argue it would needlessly pare back important Dodd-Frank protections to the benefit of large and profitable banks.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45073", "sha1": "f7e8dd963a5b09a340def66f54eb328d533a6764", "filename": "files/20180110_R45073_f7e8dd963a5b09a340def66f54eb328d533a6764.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180110_R45073_images_e81d4ca07e96d52fca7918d546c6fb9be70bba00.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45073_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180110_R45073_images_26b7443f32b87622c0a447919622a18ce2e023c8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45073", "sha1": "e1903645cbcbecbb06c69c446fe90d280fff7b84", "filename": "files/20180110_R45073_e1903645cbcbecbb06c69c446fe90d280fff7b84.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4775, "name": "Consumer Finance Protection" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4776, "name": "Housing Finance" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4898, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Education Policy", "National Defense" ] }