[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] EXAMINING REGULATORY RELIEF PROPOSALS FOR COMMUNITY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, PART II ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 15, 2014 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 113-91 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 91-155 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Chairman Member SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Emeritus NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JOHN CAMPBELL, California DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota AL GREEN, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin BILL POSEY, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado Pennsylvania JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia GARY C. PETERS, Michigan BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin BILL FOSTER, Illinois ROBERT HURT, Virginia DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE STIVERS, Ohio PATRICK MURPHY, Florida STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DENNY HECK, Washington DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina ANN WAGNER, Missouri ANDY BARR, Kentucky TOM COTTON, Arkansas KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania LUKE MESSER, Indiana Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Vice GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman Ranking Member SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York JOHN CAMPBELL, California DAVID SCOTT, Georgia KEVIN McCARTHY, California AL GREEN, Texas STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota BILL POSEY, Florida NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Pennsylvania ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana DENNY HECK, Washington ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona ANDY BARR, Kentucky TOM COTTON, Arkansas KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: July 15, 2014................................................ 1 Appendix: July 15, 2014................................................ 35 WITNESSES Tuesday, July 15, 2014 Blanton, R. Daniel, Chief Executive Officer, Georgia Bank & Trust; and Vice Chairman, American Bankers Association (ABA), on behalf of ABA............................................... 3 Clendaniel, David, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dover Federal Credit Union, on behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU).................................. 9 Cline, Sara M., Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions, on behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS)............................................. 1 Fecher, Douglas A., President and Chief Executive Officer, Wright-Patt Credit Union, on behalf of the Credit Union National Association (CUNA).................................... 5 Isaac, William M., Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting, Inc.; and former Chairman of the FDIC.......................... 10 Saunders, Lauren K., Associate Director, the National Consumer Law Center, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), the Center for Responsible Lending, the Consumer Federation of America, and U.S. PIRG.............. 12 Stanley, Marcus M., Policy Director, Americans for Financial Reform (AFR)................................................... 14 Vallandingham, Samuel A., President and Chief Executive Officer, the First State Bank, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA)...................................... 7 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Cotton, Hon. Tom............................................. 36 Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine..................................... 37 Pittenger, Hon. Robert....................................... 38 Royce, Hon. Ed............................................... 39 Blanton, R. Daniel........................................... 41 Clendaniel, David............................................ 52 Cline, Sara M................................................ 117 Fecher, Douglas A............................................ 125 Isaac, William M............................................. 149 Saunders, Lauren K........................................... 161 Stanley, Marcus M............................................ 177 Vallandingham, Samuel A...................................... 184 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore: Written statement of the American Financial Services Association (AFSA)......................................... 192 Written statement of the Appraisal Institute................. 196 Written statement of the Financial Services Roundtable....... 198 Written statement of the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors (NASCUS)................................. 200 Written statement of Toyota.................................. 201 Cotton, Hon. Tom: Written statement of Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington...................... 202 Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine: Written statement of the Electronic Transactions Association (ETA)...................................................... 204 Perlmutter, Hon. Ed: Letter from Hon. Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Hon. Martin J. Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and Hon. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, dated September 13, 2013...... 214 Letter from Hon. Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, dated January 27, 2014....................................................... 216 USA Today article entitled, ``Pots of marijuana cash cause security concerns,'' dated July 13, 2014................... 218 Royce, Hon. Ed: Letter from R. Dan Berger, President & Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), in response to questions for the record, dated July 16, 2014.............................................. 221 Response to questions for the record from Douglas A. Fecher.. 224 EXAMINING REGULATORY RELIEF PROPOSALS FOR COMMUNITY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, PART II ---------- Tuesday, July 15, 2014 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Capito, Duffy, Pearce, Westmoreland, Luetkemeyer, Stutzman, Pittenger, Barr, Cotton, Rothfus; Meeks, McCarthy of New York, Scott, Green, Perlmutter, Heck, and Sinema. Also present: Representative Royce. Chairwoman Capito. Good afternoon, everyone. Due to several series of votes that we are going to have on the Floor, Mr. Meeks and I have agreed to submit Member opening statements for the record and we will move directly to the witness testimony. I am sure you are all crying about that, but anyway, I would like to start with our first witness and I want to welcome her, my fellow West Virginian, Sara M. Cline--I call her Sally--commissioner, West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions, on behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. Welcome. You all have 5 minutes for your opening statements and you can submit your more extended statements for the record, which I believe most of you have done, in any event. So welcome, Commissioner Cline. STATEMENT OF SARA M. CLINE, COMMISSIONER, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, ON BEHALF OF THE CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS (CSBS) Ms. Cline. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Sally Cline and I serve as the commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions. It is my pleasure to testify before you today on behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors on H.R. 4626 and other bills before the committee. H.R. 4626 is just one example of Congress and State regulators' shared interest in promoting smart and efficient financial regulation. This bill will help States efficiently regulate State-licensed non-bank financial services companies through expanded use of the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System & Registry, or the NMLS. NMLS was established by State regulators in January 2008. We launched the system to regulate the mortgage industry more comprehensively and more consistently. NMLS has been successful in giving regulators the ability to keep track of bad actors and provides responsible mortgage lenders with greater efficiency and consistency in the licensing process. Congress recognized this and codified NMLS into Federal law through the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act). NMLS proved to be such a successful and critical regulatory tool in the mortgage licensing arena that State regulators, including my agency in West Virginia, have expanded its use to serve as the licensing system for other State-licensed non-bank financial services providers. Since April of 2012, State regulators have been using NMLS to include licensees such as check cashers, debt collectors, and money transmitters. This month, my department began using NMLS to license money service businesses. In total, 29 State agencies are using NMLS to license additional industries, with more coming on the system each quarter. The expanded use of NMLS has brought greater uniformity and transparency to non-depository financial services industries, and it has streamlined the licensing process for both licensees and regulators. A gap in the law, however, limits our ability to use NMLS as a licensing system for certain non-mortgage financial services providers. Under the SAFE Act, information contained in the NMLS retains whatever privileged and confidentiality protections that information enjoyed prior to being entered into the system as long as that information is shared among mortgage regulators. Because my department licenses and supervises mortgage lending, my agency is considered a mortgage industry regulator. Any regulatory information my department shares with other mortgage industry regulators through NMLS keeps all legal protections related to confidentiality and privilege. But if I needed to share licensing and other regulatory information through NMLS with a State regulator that does not license or supervise mortgage lending, that regulator might not be able to comply with the privilege and confidentiality protections that I must follow. The change proposed by H.R. 4626 addresses this uncertainty, and would provide me and my regulated entities with confidence that our information shared through the NMLS will continue to be protected under State and Federal law. State banking regulators continue to strive for better ways to supervise our diverse system of financial services businesses, and we support the committee's examination of bills designed to alleviate community bank regulatory burden. Our focus is not necessarily on less regulation, but on right-sized regulations--regulations, for example, that take into consideration the portfolio lending and relationship-based business model of community banks. My colleagues and I appreciate the work that Chairwoman Capito has done in sponsoring H.R. 4626, and we thank the many members of this committee who support it. We urge swift passage of the bill in order to cut regulatory burden, streamline the licensing process, and promote regulatory coordination at the State and Federal level. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Commissioner Cline can be found on page 117 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Daniel Blanton, chief executive officer, Georgia Bank & Trust, on behalf of the American Bankers Association. Welcome. STATEMENT OF R. DANIEL BLANTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEORGIA BANK & TRUST; AND VICE CHAIRMAN, THE AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION (ABA), ON BEHALF OF ABA Mr. Blanton. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Dan Blanton. I am the CEO of Georgia Bank & Trust in Augusta, Georgia, and vice chairman of the American Bankers Association. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the ABA regarding regulatory relief for community banks. Today, our diverse banking industry is made up of banks of all sizes and types. This depth and breadth is required to meet the broad array of financial needs of our communities and customers. Our $16 trillion economy requires a diverse U.S. banking system. Community banks are the backbone of Main Streets across America. Our presence in both small towns and large cities means we have a personal stake in the vitality of our communities. When a bank sets down roots, communities thrive. There is a widespread appreciation for the benefits community banks provide to communities across the country. Yet many actions taken by the banking agencies have hurt, not helped, community banks. During the last decade, the regulatory burden for community banks has multiplied tenfold. Managing this tsunami of regulations is a significant challenge for a bank of any size, but for the medium-sized bank with only 40 employees, it is overwhelming. Today, it is not unusual to hear bankers from strong, healthy banks say that they are ready to sell to larger banks because the regulatory burden has become too much to manage. The sad fact is that over the course of the last decade, 1,500 community banks have disappeared. Each bank that disappears from the community makes that community poorer. It is time to move from good intentions to changes that can make tangible results. We applaud the efforts of Congress to help community banks. Many of the bills being discussed today are a strong step towards relieving the burden felt by community banks, ensuring that they can continue to drive the community's growth. We urge Congress to work together, both House and Senate, to pass legislation that will help community banks better serve our customers. There are a number of measures being discussed today. We appreciate the work of this subcommittee to address these important issues. Let me briefly touch on some measures that the ABA supports. One immediate issue that must be addressed is Operation Choke Point. This program requires banks to act as policeman and judge, holding them responsible for the actions of their customers. The Department of Justice pursues banks to shut down accounts of merchants targeted without formal enforcement action, and even charges having not been brought against these merchants. Banks are committed to combating the financing of financial crimes. We already keep records and report suspicious activities to law enforcement. The policy is for banks to serve, observe, and report, but not to police. Banks should not be judge and jury on whether their customers are operating illegally. Thus, ABA supports H.R. 4986, introduced by Representative Luetkemeyer, which directly solves the problem created by Operation Choke Point. ABA also supports H.R. 4042, introduced by Representatives Luetkemeyer and Perlmutter, which would delay the implementation of Basel rules on mortgage servicing assets until the impact can be studied and better alternatives explored. Many community banks sell a portion of their mortgage loans but retain the servicing rights to these loans to maintain a relationship with their local customers. Harsh treatment of MSRs under Basel III would force many community banks to sell these rights to non-banks. This is a loss for the bank and its customer, as it can break up a long- term relationship to serve loans and meet customers' financial needs. ABA also supports H.R. 4626, introduced by Chairwoman Capito, to protect the confidentiality of information shared with State regulators; and also H.R. 3913, introduced by Representative Duffy, which requires a cost-benefits analysis of new regulations. We stand ready to work with you to make changes that will secure the future of one of the Nation's most important assets: its community banks. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Blanton can be found on page 41 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. Our next witness is--my plan here is to have one more testimony and then we are going to have to go into recess while we meet our obligations on the Floor. I apologize for that, but that is kind of life on Capitol Hill--Mr. Doug Fecher, who is the president and chief executive officer of Wright-Patt Credit Union, testifying on behalf of the Credit Union National Association. Welcome. STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. FECHER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION, ON BEHALF OF THE CREDIT UNION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (CUNA) Mr. Fecher. Thank you. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. As you said, my name is Doug Fecher and I am president and CEO of Wright-Patt Credit Union in Beavercreek, Ohio. I am testifying today on behalf of the Credit Union National Association. Nearly 2 years ago, I had the privilege of testifying before the Oversight & Government Reform Committee at a hearing exploring whether financial regulation was restricting access to credit. I say now as I said then: Credit unions face a crisis of creeping complexity with respect to regulatory burden. It is not just one new law or revised regulation that challenges credit unions, but the cumulative effect of all regulatory changes. The frequency with which new and revised regulations have been promulgated in recent years and the complexity of these requirements is staggering. Two years later, the situation has not improved; rather, it is worse. Since 2008, credit unions have had to deal with more than 180 regulatory changes from at least 15 different Federal agencies. These changes are putting credit unions and other small institutions out of business. Nearly 300 credit unions merge every year, and the primary driver of this consolidation is regulatory burden. Because most compliance costs do not vary by size, regulatory burden is proportionately greater for smaller institutions than it is for larger institutions. If a credit union offers a service, it has to be concerned about complying with virtually all of the same rules as a larger institution, but they have no choice but to spread those costs over a much smaller volume of business and have fewer resources available to implement the changes. This is one reason we continue to urge this subcommittee to encourage the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to use their exemption authority with alacrity. If Congress wants credit unions and other small, community-based financial institutions to survive, the avalanche of regulatory change must end. When regulation makes it too expensive for credit unions to serve their members, consumers are not being protected; they are being harmed. Today's hearing is important because there are several bills under consideration that would help reduce regulatory burden. But these bills are not a complete solution to the problem; they represent only a step in the right direction. CUNA supports H.R. 3240, which directs the GAO to study how the Federal Reserve has used Regulation D to conduct monetary policy. This regulation adversely impacts credit union members when they trigger more than six automatic transfers from savings to checking accounts in a month. Members are frustrated when their payments do not go through and they are hit with an unexpected NSF fee. We think the cap on automatic transfers ought to be increased, and this legislation is a first step in that regard. We also support H.R. 3374, which would provide parity to banks and thrifts wishing to offer prize-linked savings accounts to their customers. Federal credit unions and State- chartered credit unions in States with enabling legislation already have this authority. This legislation would extend the authority to banks. We think these are good programs for savers, and if a bank wants to offer them, they ought to be able to. We support the bill. H.R. 4042 would direct the Federal banking agencies to conduct a study of appropriate capital requirements for mortgage servicing assets for small banking institutions. We certainly understand the concerns expressed by the banking trade associations with respect to capital requirements related to mortgage servicing rights because we have similar concerns regarding the much more stringent requirement that NCUA recently proposed for credit unions. H.R. 4042 was introduced prior to the publication of NCUA's proposed risk-based capital rule, and the sponsors could not have contemplated the need to include credit unions as part of this legislation. We request that H.R. 4042 be amended to include NCUA among the agencies conducting the joint study and to delay implementation of NCUA's proposed rule until the study has been completed. In addition to these bills, CUNA also supports: H.R. 4626, which is a technical correction to the SAFE Act; H.R. 4986, dealing with Operation Choke Point; and the discussion draft related to appraisal requirements. Our views on these and other bills under consideration are outlined in my written statement. CUNA commends the sponsors of each of these bills for their leadership. Madam Chairwoman, as I mentioned, these bills are simply a step in the right direction towards reducing regulatory burden. There is much more work that needs to be done. That is why in my written statement I included a discussion of our concerns with NCUA's proposed rule on risk-based capital; our support of legislation related to credit union residential loan parity, introduced by Representative Royce; and our encouragement of legislation to increase the threshold for CFPB examinations. We hope the subcommittee will consider these issues in the near future. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I look forward to answering any questions the subcommittee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Fecher can be found on page 125 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Capito. Thank you very much. Now, the subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. We will return following our vote series, which we approximate to be at about 2:45. Thank you. [recess]. Mr. Duffy [presiding]. The subcommittee will now come to order. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Vallandingham for his statement. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. VALLANDINGHAM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE FIRST STATE BANK, ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY BANKERS OF AMERICA (ICBA) Mr. Vallandingham. Thank you. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee, I am Samuel Vallandingham, president and CEO of the First State Bank, a $270 million community bank in Barboursville, West Virginia. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the more than 6,500 community banks represented by the Independent Community Bankers of America. I will focus my testimony on three bills before this committee that are of particular interest to community bankers: the Community Bank Mortgage Servicing Asset Capital Requirements Study Act; the End Operation Choke Point Act; and the discussion draft, the ``Access to Affordable Mortgages Act.'' The common theme of these bills is government overreach, whether it is in the form of arbitrary capital requirements, law enforcement abuse and examination practices that harm legal and legitimate customers, or rigid and expensive appraisal requirements that escalate the cost of mortgage credit. ICBA is grateful to Representative Luetkemeyer for introducing these bills. The first bill, H.R. 4042, would delay the effective date of the Basel III mortgage servicing asset, or MSA, provisions for non-systemic banking institutions and mandate a joint agency study of the appropriate capital treatment of MSAs. Community bank mortgage servicing is at risk due to the punitive new capital provisions of Basel III. Banks that have strong capital ratios today and that have serviced mortgages for decades without problems would have starkly lower capital ratios under the new rule. My bank would lose over $1.6 million in common Tier I equity, reducing our Tier I ratio by 50 basis points. The capital reduction, combined with higher risk-weighting of MSAs, would reduce our risk-based capital ratio by 95 basis points. This impact would force me to fundamentally change my business model. The Basel III rule is, in fact, increasing systemic risk-- the opposite of its intended effect. A high volume of MSAs is shifting from regulated bank servicers to the shadow banking system. Non-bank servicers are not subject to prudential standards such as capital, liquidity, or risk management oversight. FSOC and Comptroller Thomas Curry have expressed serious concerns about the impact of this trend on financial stability. Community banks are best qualified to service the loans they originate and have done so without problems for decades. The study mandated by H.R. 4042 would provide information that is critical for the design of appropriate rule. We urge its expeditious consideration by this committee. The second bill, H.R. 4986, would preserve the ability of banks to serve legal and legitimate business customers without undue pressure from law enforcement or examiners. H.R. 4986 is a response to the Justice Department's Operation Choke Point, which is pressuring community banks to sever relationships with long-term customers in legal and legitimate businesses. Choke Point has quickly become a threat to the free exercise of commerce and the rule of law. Community banks currently dedicate significant energy and resources to monitoring, detecting, and reporting fraud and other financial problems in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act. Banks are eager to cooperate with law enforcement, but we cannot and should not act as police. At the same time, bank regulators have been scrutinizing bank relationships with businesses deemed high-risk or that supposedly create reputational risk. We are grateful to Chairman Hensarling for addressing this issue in a recent letter to the banking agencies. It is beyond the scope of the supervisory process to assess a bank's reputational risk or to prohibit or discourage banks from serving legal customers. Community banks are the best judge of their own reputational risk. At my bank, we safeguard our reputation by conducting due diligence of each customer relationship and monitoring these relationships on an ongoing basis. H.R. 4986 would clarify responsibilities of cooperation between banks and law enforcement in cases of financial fraud; it would promote direct prosecution of fraudsters; and it would preserve access to banking services for legal businesses. In addition, the bill would rein in DOJ's abusive use of subpoena authority and create a safe harbor for banks serving businesses that meet specific criteria. We urge the committee to take up this legislation without delay. The third and last bill I will discuss, the Access to Affordable Mortgages Act, will provide an exemption from independent appraisal requirements for any mortgage with a value of $250,000 or less held in portfolio, regardless of its interest rate or its QM status. When a lender holds a loan in portfolio, it bears the full risk of default, and has every incentive to ensure that the loan is appropriately collateralized. In-house appraisals or property valuations performed by bank staff are more cost-effective for the borrower, especially for low-value loans. This draft bill will increase the flow of mortgage credit for moderate-income borrowers and strengthen the housing recovery in rural and small-town markets. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Vallandingham can be found on page 184 of the appendix.] Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Vallandingham. I should have properly introduced you as the president and chief executive officer of First State Bank, testifying on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America. Thank you for your testimony. Next, Mr. Clendaniel, the president and chief executive officer of Dover Federal Credit Union, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, is recognized for 5 minutes STATEMENT OF DAVID CLENDANIEL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DOVER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS (NAFCU) Mr. Clendaniel. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee. My name is David Clendaniel and I am the president and CEO of Dover Federal Credit Union, a position I have held since 1997. I am testifying today on behalf of NAFCU. NAFCU and the entire credit union community appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing regarding legislative proposals to help provide regulatory relief for community financial institutions. Credit unions didn't cause the financial crisis and shouldn't be subject to regulations aimed at those that did. Unfortunately, that has not been the case thus far. At Dover Federal our compliance costs have more than tripled since 2009, as we don't have the economies of scale that large institutions have. We hear from many credit unions that enough is enough when it comes to the tidal wave of new regulations. Before commenting on the legislation before us today, I would like to update the committee on NCUA's risk-based capital proposal and what impact this rule could have if it becomes final without significant changes. As members of the subcommittee are aware, this ongoing issue is of the utmost importance to credit unions of all sizes. My written testimony outlines in detail the concerns we have with this proposal. Without significant changes to the proposed rule many credit unions, including mine, would likely consider changing charters away from being a credit union due to the onerous nature of the proposal--a proposal that instead of emulating the Basel requirements for banks goes a lot further, particularly in its risk weights for credit unions. We are pleased that the NCUA has indicated that they expect to make changes in the proposal before finalizing. Still, credit unions hope to have an opportunity to comment and provide feedback on these changes before they are final. NAFCU believes that this rule is so impactful that it needs to be done right, with industry feedback throughout the process, so credit unions can be clear on how things work before they start making changes to comply. An important part of this is making sure there is a sufficient implementation period for any final rule. Congress must continue to provide oversight and make sure that the issue is studied and fully vetted for economic impact before the NCUA moves forward. One way Congress could address this issue would be to add language to the Community Bank Mortgage Servicing Asset Capital Requirements Study Act, H.R. 4042, that is before the committee today. Since this bill already tackles an issue with Basel, it could be a suitable vehicle for Congress to weigh in on risk- based capital. I would also like to highlight several other measures under consideration today that NAFCU supports. These include, first, the American Savings Promotion Act, H.R. 3374, that would amend Federal law to allow credit unions and other financial institutions to use savings promotion raffle products. As the country recovers from the worst financial crisis of our time, creative programs with clear rules and guidelines that encourage household savings merit serious consideration. Second, the End Operation Choke Point Act, H.R. 4986. Credit unions remain concerned with the aggressive nature of the Justice Department's Operation Choke Point Program. While preventing fraud is a laudable concern, this program is putting unnecessary onus on credit unions to police activities of legal third parties. Third, the Regulation D Study Act, H.R. 3240. This bipartisan legislation would mandate the GAO to study the impact of the Federal Reserve Board's monetary reserve requirements on depository institutions, consumers, and monetary policy. Federal Reserve Regulation D is a prime example of an outdated regulation that is on NAFCU's ``dirty dozen'' list. And finally, the SAVE Act Confidentiality and Privilege Enhancement Act, H.R. 4626. This common-sense technical fix is welcomed by credit unions. My written statement highlights other measures we also support, including outlining several areas where relief and greater regulatory coordination is needed. I would encourage the subcommittee to consider those areas, as well. In conclusion, the growing regulatory burden on credit unions from new laws and regulations is a top challenge facing the industry. NAFCU appreciates the subcommittee's work to review legislation to provide regulatory relief for credit unions. We would urge the committee to move forward on these ideas. Congress should also continue vigorous oversight of the Federal financial agencies, including NCUA, and take action on these issues outlined in this statement where appropriate. We thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you today. I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Clendaniel can be found on page 52 of the appendix. ] Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Clendaniel. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Isaac, senior managing director at FTI Consulting, for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. ISAAC, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR, FTI CONSULTING, INC.; AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE FDIC Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful that you are holding this hearing. The opinions I express today are my own; I do not purport to speak on behalf of my firm, FTI Consulting. And in the interest of full disclosure, some of FTI's clients have an interest in matters before the subcommittee today. By way of background, I was appointed to the FDIC Board of Directors at age 34 by President Carter in 1978, and I was named Chairman by President Reagan in 1981. I returned to the private sector at the end of 1985 after serving nearly 2 years beyond my 6-year term at the FDIC. I also served during my term at the FDIC as Chairman of the Financial Institutions Examination Council and as a member of the Basel Committee. In my view, Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Without legal authority, and based on a political agenda, unelected officials at the Department of Justice are coordinating with some bank regulators to deny essential banking services to companies engaged in lawful business activities that some government officials don't like. Bankers are being cowed into compliance by an oppressive regulatory regime. Perfectly lawful businesses are being denied access to essential banking services because they offer products or services that unelected officials don't like. This ought to alarm and frighten each of us, irrespective of our ideology, party affiliation, or view of the particular products or services being cut off. Regulators and the DOJ have highlighted some two dozen businesses they consider high-risk or undesirable. I have spent my entire professional career in banking and bank regulation and I don't discern any meaningful increase in risk in providing basic banking services such as deposit accounts, payroll processing, or check-clearing services to any of these businesses, compared to a host of other legitimate businesses. Operation Choke Point is fundamentally unfair to the banks and to the legal businesses that find their banking services cut off. Once banking services are cut off to a legal business as a result of a subpoena or the threat of a subpoena, there is no chance for the business to appeal the decision. The company is simply in a business that, while legal, has been determined undesirable and therefore high-risk by the Federal bureaucracy. This Orwellian result ought to be frightening--it is frightening. If government employees acting without statutory authority can coerce banks into denying services to firms engaged in lawful behavior that the government doesn't like, where does it stop? The point is simple and incredibly important: Under our constitutional republic, unelected government employees should not decide which lawful businesses may have access to banking services and which are to be denied. Those who have serious concerns about payday loans, check-cashing services, adult films, family planning clinics, or other products and services should take their concerns to State or Federal legislatures and attempt to enact reforms. The DOJ should not be involved in bank regulation to any extent whatsoever. Its job is to prosecute crime, as defined by law. Bank regulators need to stay out of the political arena and focus all of their energy on ensuring that banks are operating in a safe and sound manner and are complying with all laws and regulations. Neither the DOJ nor the bank regulators should be allowed to dictate which lawful businesses will be granted or denied access to banking services. Representative Luetkemeyer's bill provides a safe harbor to promote nondiscriminatory access to financial products and services by banks and credit unions to businesses that are licensed, registered as money services businesses, or have reasoned legal opinions demonstrating the legality of their business. The legislation also seeks to rein in DOJ's subpoena authority by requiring judicial oversight. Importantly, banks and credit unions would retain their legal authority and discretion in establishing or maintaining relationships with existing and potential customers. The Constitution dictates that the place to debate whether payday lending or any other lawful business should be allowed to operate and have access to the banking system is in the halls of Congress and the State legislatures, not in the back rooms of government bureaucracies. The Luetkemeyer bill is an extremely important step in reining in government agencies that are greatly overstepping their authority and breaching the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government and between the States and the Federal Government. While some of us may applaud the attack against payday lending, ammunition distributors, or home-based charities, we will likely take a very different position when a new Administration decides to attack activities more near and dear to our hearts. I urge the Congress to enact immediately, without delay, the Luetkemeyer bill, as Operation Choke Point is doing severe and irreparable damage to firms engaged in lawful business activities. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Isaac can be found on page 149 of the appendix.] Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Isaac. Well said. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Saunders, the associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF LAUREN K. SAUNDERS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON BEHALF OF AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM, THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER (ON BEHALF OF ITS LOW INCOME CLIENTS), THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING, THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, AND U.S. PIRG Ms. Saunders. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am here to speak in opposition to H.R. 4986 and other actions that would weaken efforts to stop banks from facilitating illegal activity. Banks play a critical role in enabling fraudsters to debit consumers' bank accounts. In 2008, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) ordered Wachovia Bank to pay $125 million to reimburse elderly consumers whose accounts were debited by scammers. Wachovia had plenty of warning signs of fraud but chose to continue processing payments for a lucrative client. After Wachovia cut them off, some scammers moved to Zions Bank, where they continued scamming seniors. Three banks had previously turned down one scammer, but a bank broker that specialized in finding banks willing to take on high-risk clients took them to Zions in exchange for a share of the profits. Minimal vetting would have alerted Zions, which soon had direct evidence of its own, including warnings from regulators and the bank's chief risk officer, but Zions suppressed these concerns in light of the high profits. Zions Bank is one of the banks that have received subpoenas from Operation Choke Point, which focuses on banks that know or willfully ignore evidence that they are facilitating fraud and illegal activity. The first--and to date, only--Choke Point case was against Four Oaks Bank & Trust, which helped process payments for illegal and fraudulent payday loans, a Ponzi scheme, and an illegal gambling site. The bank overlooked hundreds of consumer complaints, warnings from State A.G.s, and extremely high rates of payments rejected as unauthorized. The Four Oaks case is exactly the type of case that the Justice Department should be bringing. But instead of focusing on what DOJ is actually doing, some critics have drawn sweeping conclusions from anecdotes on individual bank account closures. Since long before Operation Choke Point, payday lenders and check-cashers had been complaining about bank account closures. In 2006, the Financial Service Centers of America testified that, ``For the past 6 years banks have been abandoning us-- first in a trickle, then continuously accelerating, so that now few banks are willing to service us.'' That was in 2006. Some of the recent bank account closures may have more to do with the money-transmitting side of a payday lender's business than the loan side. Entities with insufficient anti- money-laundering regimes may have trouble finding banks. And some banks may prefer not to do the due diligence at all and to leave that line of business to banks that will, as they should. In addition, when banks choose to process payments in areas rife with fraud and illegal activity, regulators are right to insist that they be aware of the risks. Banks that can stop fraud should, and they are also on the hook if they originate a payment that is unauthorized or if the authorization is invalid due to fraud or illegality. If some banks have misunderstood a bank's duties in high- risk areas, that can be clarified. But it would be a terrible mistake to weaken controls that can block illegal activity from the payment system. H.R. 4986 would prohibit regulators from warning banks about the risks of illegal payments. It would create an inappropriate safe harbor for payments processed for an entity with a State license, a money transmitter registration, or even just a letter from its attorney. A State license is no guarantee that a bank will not expose the bank to liability. CashCall is a licensed lender in many States, but it continued debiting consumer checking accounts for money they did not owe after the payday lender it was collecting for shut down its operations in response to enforcement actions and court orders. Similarly, registration as a money transmitter does not ensure compliance with anti-money-laundering or know-your- customer rules. And virtually anyone can get a letter from an attorney vouching for the legality of their conduct. Remember, fraud hurts more than the direct victims. Online businesses and stores like Target lose business when consumers are afraid to shop. When a scammer's bank debits a consumer account at a small bank, it costs the consumer's bank, on average, $100 to deal with the unauthorized charge, and as high as $500. I urge you to oppose H.R. 4986 and other measures that would undermine efforts to prevent illegal activity that harms millions of Americans, businesses, and American security. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders can be found on page 161 of the appendix.] Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Saunders. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stanley, the policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MARCUS M. STANLEY, POLICY DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM (AFR) Mr. Stanley. Thank you. Chairwoman Capito and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of Americans for Financial Reform. AFR opposes H.R. 3913, H.R. 5037, and the Access to Affordable Mortgages Act of 2014. I also note that Lauren Saunders has testified on behalf of AFR as well as the National Consumer Law Center in opposition to H.R. 4986. AFR has no position at this time on the other bills being discussed today. H.R. 3913 would amend the Volcker Rule to, among other things, ban any rulemaking under the section that would ``impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.'' AFR has consistently opposed this kind of broad, vague statutory mandates. Such mandates are an open invitation to endless lawsuits by well-funded Wall Street interests seeking to overturn rules that may reduce their profits, even if such rules serve the public interest. This mandate also appears to prioritize competition over other public interest considerations, such as equity and financial stability. Existing law already provides ample opportunity for judicial review of agency decisions. Congress should not encourage further lawsuits by placing such vague directives in statute. We also disagree with the premise that the Volcker Rule creates an excessive burden on competition. Bank trading activities are dominated by a small number of too-big-to-fail banks. Restricting proprietary trading at such banks should improve competitive balance, not harm it. Nor should the Volcker Rule harm the international competitiveness of U.S. industry. This claim ignores the 60- year period during which U.S. banks operated under Glass- Steagall restrictions, which were much more far-reaching than the Volcker Rule. This historical experience does not provide evidence of harm to international competitiveness. H.R. 5037 would impose new requirements and duties on the Office of Financial Research (OFR). We oppose this legislation as both redundant and harmful. These requirements are redundant because the OFR already engages in extensive public reporting, consults frequently with member agencies, and is subject to the full range of cybersecurity requirements applicable to the U.S. Treasury. The requirements are harmful because the specific requirements in the bill would damage the OFR's ability to perform its mission. H.R. 5037 requires the OFR to provide a public advance description of every report, guidance, working paper, or information request to be conducted during the coming year, as well as planned work dates associated with each such action. Besides being unrealistic, this requirement would provide a roadmap to Wall Street interests on how to lobby the OFR concerning each detail of its work in progress. The bill further requires OFR to make public the exact time and nature of every consultation with any member agency staffer regarding any report as well as every recommendation made in such a consultation. Making these details public would exercise a significant chilling effect on the willingness of member agency personnel to share frank views with the OFR. Even transparency laws such as the Freedom of Information Act provide a deliberative process exemption to safeguard deliberations on work in progress, but this is absent from H.R. 5037. We also disagree that OFR's current level of public transparency or consultation is inadequate. OFR's annual reports and working papers provide significant detail on current and upcoming projects as well as views on key financial risks. More recently, the OFR has been required to provide detailed quarterly reports to Congress on all spending and actions in the past quarter. The Treasury's recent letter to the House on the OFR's asset management report also shows that the OFR engages in extensive consultation with member agencies. Consultation with the SEC on the asset management report included the exchange of at least 15 draft versions of the report, at least 13 separate meetings, and additional informal consultation. SEC Chair Mary Jo White has stated that the SEC commented extensively on the report when it was in progress. The OFR's mission of studying potential emerging threats to U.S. financial stability is a critical one. In order to perform its mission, the OFR must have independence from political pressures that may affect its member agencies. The way to improve the OFR's work is to support its independence and its ability to act as a warning voice concerning threats others may choose to overlook. The changes in H.R. 5037 would have the opposite effect. The Access to Affordable Mortgages Act of 2014 would exempt higher-risk mortgages of $250,000 or under from new appraisal requirements included in the Dodd-Frank Act. We oppose this exemption. ``Higher-risk mortgages'' refers to what were once called ``subprime mortgages.'' Fraud and predatory lending connected to subprime mortgage origination was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Exempting higher-risk mortgages of up to $250,000 from appraisal requirements would significantly undermine these new regulatory protections. The $250,000 exemption would include almost half of all new homes sold in the United States and likely well over half of higher-risk mortgage loans. The requirement that a lender retain the loan on their balance sheet for at least 3 years does provide some protection. But data on subprime loan defaults shows significant increases in default past the 36-month point. H.R. 4042 would mandate further study and delay in the implementation of new capital rules on mortgage servicing assets. AFR does not currently have a position on H.R. 4042. However, we do have some concerns regarding this legislation. These concerns are detailed in my written testimony. Thank you very much, and now I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley can be found on page 177 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Capito. Thank you, Mr. Stanley. With that, we will begin the question portion of our hearing, and I will yield myself 5 minutes for questioning. Commissioner Cline, you noted in your written testimony and your oral testimony that the NMLS system has been successful in streamlining the licensing system for mortgage loan originators and improving information sharing from State to State. Could you share with the committee why you think H.R. 4626 would bolster these new licensing regimes? But better yet, could you kind of frame it in terms of how it might help protect consumers? Ms. Cline. Yes. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito. And thank you for your support of H.R. 4626. Currently, under the SAFE Act, information is protected and shared between mortgage regulators. What H.R. 4626 will do is extend those protections of confidential and privileged information between all regulators who choose to use the NMLS to license other types of nonmortgage financial service providers. This system has been proven to increase uniformity. It is reducing regulatory burden for the licensees. And it is enhancing better coordination between the agencies that license these entities. As far as consumer protections, it does enhance consumer protection and it benefits not only consumers but the industry as well. Chairwoman Capito. I would imagine, too, that it better protects probably personal and private information for each consumer as their information becomes a part of this system. That, to me, would be one of the major benefits of this. Is that correct? Ms. Cline. That is correct. The NMLS employs numerous controls to protect the privacy and the security of sensitive information. It is required to be compliant with the Federal Information Security Management Act, which it employs over 154 controls that are--they are reviewed, validated, and tested by an independent third party on an annual basis. The NMLS is also required to comply with all State and Federal laws. But yes, in fact-- Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. Ms. Cline. --it is a secure system. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. Mr. Vallandingham, one of the issues we are discussing today is the ability of financial institutions to maintain mortgage servicing rights for the mortgages they originate. As you noted in your testimony, recent regulatory actions are making it more difficult to do so. Can you share with the subcommittee how your institution views mortgage servicing rights, and what that means for you as a community bank to still be engaged in this practice, and how that would influence consumers in your areas? Mr. Vallandingham. Absolutely. As I stated in my testimony, we would lose $1.6 million in Tier I capital. I have spent half my life building our servicing portfolio, and it would take that business model away from us. Our primary business line is mortgage lending and the servicing that subsequently is created by that, and ultimately, we would have to dramatically change our business model because we could no longer grow and build that servicing. It is in a time period when servicing has increased cost, and ultimately our economies of scale have been crushed. And at that point in time this would hinder us from continuing to grow and being able to build on a business model that has been extremely successful for our organization. In terms of our consumers, I get daily requests from borrowers who want to buy a new home and come back to us because of the service that they get. Community banks are better positioned to provide the high-touch, high-quality service to mortgage borrowers than some of these non-bank shadow market servicers that have grown exponentially because of this. So ultimately, I think community banks do a better job of it and we want to continue to build on that. This will absolutely cap that business and take small banks out of the servicing market. Chairwoman Capito. And I would imagine, too, your customers would prefer to know exactly when and how and who is servicing their mortgage rather than have it be off in a different State or very remote from them. Sometimes people run into problems, and being able to go to the institution they know is carrying these servicing rights would be, I think, a bonus to a consumer, correct? Mr. Vallandingham. My employees have such close relationships with their borrowers that they often get letters, they know about their family events, they even get presents at holidays. When you call our organization and you want to ask about your mortgage, you know that Debbie Kerns is going to answer the phone in escrow and she is going to explain your escrow analysis to you. Chairwoman Capito. Right. Mr. Vallandingham. If you were to call one of the larger national non-bank providers you don't know who you would get. You might even get a recording. And you don't know that you would get your question answered. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. I have run over my time. Thank you. Mr. Green? Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I thank the witnesses for appearing. And I am also very grateful that I live in a country where no one is above the law. And I am especially grateful to God that I live in a country where no one is beneath the law. If there is one among you who believes that banks do not break the law, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? I take it from the absence of hands in the air that there are none among you and I ask that the record reflect that no one believes, on this panel, that banks do not break the law. Mr. Blanton and Mr. Isaac, there was a case that has been mentioned out of North Carolina, a case that involved hundreds of consumer complaints, as was indicated by Ms. Saunders, a case that involved many, many complaints from banks, a case wherein a settlement was made for $1.2 million. This bank received $850,000 in fees. The Justice Department interceded and as a result, there was some redress. I hope it won't surprise you to know that earlier today there was a witness present from the Justice Department who indicated that but for this Operation Choke Point, that settlement would not have taken place. So I ask you, my dear friends, Mr. Isaac, do you have any disagreement with the settlement against Four Oaks bank? Mr. Isaac? Mr. Isaac. I am not intimately familiar with the case, but-- Mr. Green. All right. Mr. Isaac. --I understand that there was some fairly egregious behavior there, and I believe that there should have been action taken, and I don't believe-- Mr. Green. Thank you very much. Mr. Isaac. --and I don't believe that Operation-- Mr. Green. Let me, if I may, go to my next witness, and I will come back to you. Mr. Isaac. Could I just finish the answer? Mr. Green. Not just yet, if I may, please. Mr. Isaac. Okay. Mr. Green. I want to accord you every courtesy. I don't mean to be rude, crude, and unrefined, but I have a limited amount of time. Let me now move to Mr. Blanton. Do you find any reason to differ with the way that case was resolved? And do you find that it was appropriate to take action, given that banks were complaining against Four Oaks? Mr. Blanton. From what I understand, I believe that there were instances where that happened. I think there were plenty of signs there to indicate that, and I think action happened. Whether or not Choke Point was a trigger-- Mr. Green. If I may, let me intercede again because I have a minute and 40-plus seconds. A witness from the Justice Department--I can accord you his name for edification purposes: Mr. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice--indicated that it was Operation Choke Point that gave them the opportunity to bring to justice in this circumstance. I have read the bill that you both favor and I respect my colleagues, but are you desiring to put banks in a position such that they cannot answer for unlawful conduct, Mr. Isaac? Is that your desire? Mr. Isaac. Of course not. I prosecuted a lot-- Mr. Green. Is that your desire, Mr-- Mr. Isaac. I have prosecuted a lot of-- Mr. Green. --Blanton? Is that your desire? Mr. Blanton. No, sir, it is not. Mr. Green. This bill produces more than a safe harbor; it provides an escape from liability. Mr. Blanton. I would say, though, if the bank was doing its job properly-- Mr. Green. The bank wasn't doing its job properly and that is why you and I are having this discussion. It wasn't doing its job properly. Do you want banks to just have an absolute get-out-of-jail-free card so that they can take advantage of consumers? You heard Ms. Saunders talk about the hundreds of consumer complaints. Ms. Saunders, is that correct? Were you correct when you said that? Ms. Saunders. I was quoting from the complaint in the Four Oaks case, yes. Mr. Green. And do you concur that it was necessary for the Justice Department to intercede? Ms. Saunders. Absolutely. They stopped a lot of fraud and illegal activity by intervening. Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. Mr. Duffy, for 5 minutes. Mr. Duffy. I was going to ask a poll question about how many of you think that Federal bureaucrats and Obama Administration officials are breaking the law, but I am going to skip that right now. Ms. Saunders, I want to talk to you about Operation Choke Point. You agree with this policy from DOJ, is that correct? Ms. Saunders. Yes. As I understand it, the operation focuses on fraud and illegal activity and banks that are in a position to stop it and I agree with that focus. Mr. Duffy. And you went to law school. You are an attorney, correct? Ms. Saunders. Yes. Mr. Duffy. Were you here for the testimony this morning? Ms. Saunders. I was not. Mr. Duffy. Okay. So we heard from Mr. Delery from DOJ, and during the course of his testimony he was constantly talking about fraudulent merchants that had to be addressed through Operation Choke Point. The problem is that Operation Choke Point focuses on these merchants' ability to bank but doesn't look at any fraudulent behavior with the merchants themselves. And so if you don't bank a third party payer or a payday loan institution or a gun sales institution, they can't do business. You put them out of business. But there is no due process. There is no ability to have a hearing. There is no ability to have a judge hear testimony and make a determination of, ``Yes, these people have committed fraud,'' or, ``No, they are innocent.'' What you have is a bureaucrat in the DOJ saying, like you just said, ``I have done an investigation. I have taken complaints, and this is fraud.'' You believe in due process, don't you? Ms. Saunders. I do. Mr. Duffy. And if you are one of these subject merchants, don't you think that they should have due process? Shouldn't they have a hearing to determine whether they have committed fraud under our laws or whether they are innocent? We shouldn't just have bureaucrats in the DOJ do this, should we? Ms. Saunders. I think if a bank has a merchant that has unauthorized returns that are through the roof, warnings from regulators of fraudulent illegal activity, I don't think we need to wait for a trial to track down the people around the globe who may be scamming people before the bank says, ``You know what? I think there is fraud going on here and I am not going to be part of it.'' Mr. Duffy. I was a prosecutor, and we would collect a lot of evidence and a lot of firsthand statements and complaints, and if we just convicted people without a trial and said, ``Well, look at all the information. I am not going to track down this defendant and give them due process. I am not going to give them a trial.'' What kind of government do we become if we don't offer these protections to what we all believe is a legitimate business until proven otherwise? When you have this bureaucrat say, ``I have done an investigation.'' It is not open. It can't be reviewed by the Congress; it can't be accessed by the merchant. And I have just found that you have committed fraud and we are going to cut off your ability to bank. Is that the right way we should do business in the American Government? Because that is what they are doing. Ms. Saunders. I think it is a surprising statement to say that a bank should not stop processing payments when they have substantial, egregious evidence of fraud going on and that they need to keep processing payments and debiting consumer accounts before we can have-- Mr. Duffy. I don't know what law school you went to, but we afford people due process. We just don't say, ``There is evidence, and so I convict.'' I am astounded that you are giving this testimony today saying there is evidence, with no trial, just conviction with evidence. Ms. Saunders. I see no conviction here, but in the Wachovia case, for example, I don't think it would be right to continue debiting--letting scammers debit seniors' accounts just because we haven't yet had a trial of all those scammers. If Wachovia knows what is going on, they know they are--these are scammers using them to debit consumer accounts, they ought to stop it. Mr. Duffy. Sure. But then shouldn't we--this is not the only case, and there was only one example that was given of someone who was prosecuted on the merchant side and Wachovia was cited, but beyond that no one else has been prosecuted. And I guess I would ask the panel, do you know of merchants that have been put out of business because you have been unable to bank them because of Operation Choke Point? Mr. Vallandingham? Mr. Vallandingham. Yes. There is a current news article that Chase had been closing accounts for pawn shops in the State of West Virginia. So they have been given 30 days to move their account, close the account. They have done nothing wrong; they have had no--they are not debiting anyone's account. Just as a business class in our State, they are eliminated from the banking system. Mr. Duffy. And do you have any knowledge that they had a trial and a determination that they were doing business fraudulently? Mr. Vallandingham. Absolutely not. Mr. Duffy. Right. So they didn't have due process, correct? Mr. Vallandingham. No, they did not. Mr. Duffy. Ms. Saunders, that is my concern. We need to have due process in this country and we don't want bureaucrats in Washington sitting in the DOJ convicting people without a hearing. And I guess that is why, coming to Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill, do you--does the panel agree that Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill takes a step in the right direction to make sure we give some protections to merchants from bureaucrats in the DOJ scheming to go after businesses or merchants that they don't like? Mr. Blanton. Yes. We support the bill. Mr. Duffy. My time has expired. I yield back. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. Mr. Perlmutter, for 5 minutes. Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I agreed to give Mr. Green an opportunity to respond to Mr. Duffy for just 15 seconds. Mr. Green. Thank you very much. And I take all of these things-- Mr. Perlmutter. I yield to Mr. Green. Mr. Green. I tend to take things seriously--and thank you very much. If others perform activities that are unacceptable, I don't believe it gives us a license to accord unacceptable activities to other entities. And I just want to go on record as saying whatever happens anywhere else doesn't change our need to make sure that we help protect consumers. They should not be beneath the law, and no one else--and no other entity should be above the law. Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Reclaiming my time, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Isaac, it is good to see you. Mr. Isaac. It is good to see you. Mr. Perlmutter. I will start with the Choke Point question that we have been dealing with, and I am somewhere between Mr. Green and Mr. Duffy on this, that clearly there were some bad actors. Those bad actors, through an investigation, have been ferreted out. But in my opinion, you don't create, then, a dragnet that then continues to sweep-up more and more people into it; on a case-by-case basis you look for the fraud and you punish the fraudulent. So I agree with Mr. Green to a certain degree. Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill I think is generally on the right track but goes too far, especially on the liability component of it. But I do appreciate his safe harbor piece, especially as it applies to something going on in Colorado and 23 other States, and that is, in fact, that those States have provided a regulatory scheme for the use and business of marijuana, and part of what is going on is it is very difficult for those businesses to bank. And I ask unanimous consent to place the USA Today article from yesterday concerning the security measures that so many have to go through in the record. Chairwoman Capito. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. Perlmutter. I would like to see that those particular businesses that are legal in their States can continue to do business in a way that they aren't shut off from the banking system. And I do think that Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill does provide for that, so that is a saving grace of the bill for me. My questions, though, I would like to--Mr. Stanley, you were talking a little bit about the mortgage servicing. You said you really didn't have any complaints about it, but you still had some questions. What are your questions about it? Because I am supportive of kind of delaying it, making sure that the mortgage servicing doesn't flow from community banks and insured institutions to non-banks. There are plenty of non-banks. I am happy for them to have business. But I don't want the insured institutions losing that business either. What do you say about that? Mr. Stanley. I think I have two things. In terms of our questions, the prudential regulators did carefully consider thousands of comments on their proposed Basel rules and they chose the significantly eased capital requirements in many areas, including residential mortgages, but they did not modify the ceiling on these mortgage servicing assets, and I think what we would like to see is more of the information from the regulators on how and why they reached that decision that might have included a lot of the data that this study might produce. And in terms of movement to non-bank servicers, we feel there are a lot of things driving that, that it isn't just these capital rules, it is reputational, some of the violations, frankly, that the big banks did on servicing, some of the settlement issues. So there are a lot of things driving that, we feel. Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you. I think that there are a lot of--the Basel components, though, in my opinion, play a big role in driving some of that mortgage servicing to the non-banks, and that is why we are asking for a little bit of a timeout to just make sure whether I am right or wrong. And so that is why we are doing it. Madam Chairwoman, if I could, I would like to introduce into the record several letters: a September 13, 2013, letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to me concerning mortgage servicing assets; a January 27, 2014, letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System concerning that; a May 20th letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America; and a May 12th letter from the American Bankers Association. Chairwoman Capito. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. I yield back. Chairwoman Capito. Mr. Westmoreland? Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Stanley, when was Americans for Financial Reform--when did you come into existence? Mr. Stanley. Americans for Financial Reform was created, I believe--I wasn't there at the time--in 2008 as a response to the financial crisis and the feeling that people needed to-- Mr. Westmoreland. That's okay. That is all I wanted. Thank you. Now, to the six witnesses who live in the real world and have real-life experiences of lending money and banking people and working in the business, with respect to the FDIC's complicity in Operation Choke Point, are you familiar with the list of high-risk activities identified by the FDIC in the summer of 2011 supervisory insights entitled, ``Managing Risk in Third Party Payment Processor Relationships?'' Are you aware of any other list of high-risk merchants or activities published by the DOJ, the FDIC, the FRB, or the OCC? Just a quick head shake. Good. Were any of your institutions offered the opportunity to comment on the list before it was compiled and published? Nobody? Have any of these agencies reached out to your institutions since the list was published to determine the impact on your industry? That is a little weird, isn't it, since it involves your industries? You would think that the government would at least want to have some input as to this. Mr. Isaac, I know that you were past Chairman of the FDIC. Did you ever see anything while you were there that the Administration would have wanted to coordinate with regulators to specifically cut off access to financial services? Mr. Isaac. No, other than as prescribed by the law--for example, money laundering and so forth. But apart from that, cutting off drug dealers, terrorists, and so forth, which was enacted by Congress, no. Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Isaac, I want to ask you one other question. You briefly mentioned the idea that examiners and bank regulators are more concerned with the bank's reputational risk, seemingly to the exclusion of all other concerns, save the capital ratio. Is it possible this emphasis on reputational risk is detracting examiners from seeing other problems that may be happening at a bank? Mr. Isaac. I do believe, as I said in my full testimony, that I am very concerned about the degree to which the examiners over the past couple of decades have started focusing on reputational risk. I don't know what it means; I don't know anybody who knows what it means except that the bank is doing something that the regulator doesn't like but the regulator can't seem to quantify the risk and put it into the CAMELS rating system, which is the objective standard we are supposed to be using. So I am very concerned about where we have gone with reputational risk. I would get rid of it. I don't think it is a helpful concept at all. Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you. Mr. Blanton, while I support the bills that are being considered today, I don't think any of them come really close to being the substantive regulatory relief that I have hoped that this committee would one day take up. There are still some issues around accounting methods, regulatory capital, classification of distressed assets, examiner overreach, and overreaction that I still hear from bankers every day. Are these the things that--as vice president of the American Bankers Association, are these the things you are hearing every day, too? Mr. Blanton. Yes, they are. We have a tremendous burden on our banks that is especially disproportionate to the smaller banks, in that they just really don't have the resources available. And it is in a one-size-fits-all mentality to where my bank at $1.8 billion and a $200 million bank have to comply at the same level. It is very difficult for them to do that. Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the remainder of my time. Chairwoman Capito. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Heck, for 5 minutes. Mr. Heck. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would first like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, with respect to Congressman Luetkemeyer's legislation, both with respect to the desire to seek a happy balance within it and its positive intent, and also with respect to his concerns regarding the impact on States which have legalized some form of marijuana consumption. And I would also like to thank the Chair. There are a lot of bills on today's agenda that we can vote out of this committee in a bipartisan way, and if I might editorialize, we don't have enough days like that. And I thank you for it. Let's see. Who am I going to pick--is it Mr. Fecher? I'm sorry. I don't know how to pronounce your name. Mr. Fecher. Yes. ``Fecher.'' Mr. Heck. ``Fecher,'' with a hard ``K.'' Mr. Fecher. I am from a good old German family. Mr. Heck. I think I know that, as a ``Heck.'' I am enthusiastic about H.R. 3374, the American Savings Protection Act, and I note that there are Federal laws which have the effect of prohibiting banks and certain thrifts from offering certain kinds of these, if you will, safe, regulated, and innovative savings products. And I am just wondering, from your professional experience, sir, can you think of any compelling policy basis for enabling certain financial institutions to offer these but prohibiting others from doing so? Mr. Fecher. No, I cannot. Mr. Heck. As you read the legislation, Mr. Fecher, is there anything in it that would preempt existing State laws in any way? Does it change a State's ability to regulate these kinds of products whatsoever? Mr. Fecher. Not to my knowledge, no. Mr. Heck. Would these products be subject to the same kind of regulatory oversight as any other financial product offered by a bank or a credit union? Mr. Fecher. I believe they would, yes. Mr. Heck. If you were to offer this in your institution--I assume you do not at the present time--would you pay for the promotion out of your marketing account and use that as an attraction for a cash prize to incentivize increased savings? Mr. Fecher. Yes, we would. Mr. Heck. You are an awfully easy witness to work with, Mr. Fecher. I would like to-- Mr. Fecher. We have had a lot of experience with these prize-based accounts. They help average Americans decide to save money because the interest rates that we are able to pay on our deposit accounts are so small, if you are saving $500 or maybe $1,000 it is not really much of an incentive to get a .25 percent interest rate on that. And so the perceived value of the opportunity to win something more meaningful will cause many Americans to establish a savings program that they might not otherwise have done. And we have seen that in the institutions that have done this. So as a matter of public policy, that is why I support it. I think we want Americans to save more money, especially Americans of more modest means who don't have the significant sums of money where interest rates matter more than this perceived value of these prize-based accounts. So I think properly done, it is a matter of good public policy. Mr. Heck. It took me four questions to get you to give the speech I wanted you to give, but I am extremely grateful, sir. Mr. Fecher. I caught on after a couple of seconds. Mr. Heck. I think the point is made. We don't save enough, and anything that we can do that does not compromise the consumer but incentivizes the kind of behavior that every single person sitting in this room believes would benefit them not only as individuals but society as a whole ought to be an easy public policy to pursue. And I want to publicly acknowledge and thank both Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Cotton for offering this legislation in hopes that my colleagues will give it a ``yes'' vote as soon as they can. I have a minute left, so I will get to the meatier stuff in some regards, I guess, or the more controversial stuff. You have raised some questions about the NCUA's risk-based capital rule--its proposed rule. I have shared those concerns. I have expressed my concern to the NCUA. I am not sure about the whole shift of risk weightings after we saw what we did in the financial crisis. But if we are to go ahead and do something in this regard, I would be curious and interested to know what your reaction would be to that which I would only think is fair, to combine it with giving credit unions tools to raise additional capital. And as you know, there is legislation before this committee to do that. Mr. Fecher. Right. Thank you, Representative. That is an important question. The NCUA's rule, as well-intended as it may be, to ensure that credit unions are adequately capitalized for the risk on their balance sheet--the rule, as written as proposed, actually requires higher capital risk weightings in many categories than even the community banks, despite the performance of credit unions through the recent Great Recession. And so that is the start of our concern. You add that to the fact that a credit union's only way of raising capital is through its earnings, what it ends up meaning is that credit unions will be able to deliver less value to their members on the street. And so what we ask is that the subcommittee exercise oversight over NCUA's rule. Now we believe NCUA will change the rule based on the over 2,200 comments that they received, but we believe it needs to be changed substantially. Frankly, our hope is that it is withdrawn and they start over again. Short of that actually happening, we would hope that the committee would take a good look at, ask questions kind of to what Mr. Stanley said before: How do you justify these risk weightings? What is the empirical evidence behind them? Because if we set risk weightings that are just simply too high it will cause credit unions to withhold value from their consumer members on the street, and I don't think anybody wants that to happen. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Heck. With one additional second of indulgence? I just want to reiterate, we really are very grateful to have before us legislation that we can all support. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. And I think we will give credit where it is due to the ranking member, as well. We have worked together on these. I would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert the following Member's opening statements into the record: Ms. Capito; Mr. Duffy; Mr. Luetkemeyer; Mr. Westmoreland; Mr. Cotton; Mr. Pittenger; Mr. Stutzman; and Mr. Meeks. And with that, I will yield 5 minutes to Mr. Luetkemeyer for questions. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to ask the first question with regards to the appraisal requirement bill that we have before us. And, Mr. Blanton, I want to ask it of you. This section removes the appraisal requirement on primary residences for those loans under a quarter of a million dollars and held in portfolio by a creditor for less than 3 years. Can you tell me, if we do this, what kind of risk that the bank is exposed to by going along with something like this? Mr. Blanton. By and large, we are exposed to the risk of making the loan and having this asset. And we can do evaluations that are more cost-conscious ways of determining the value of our asset-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. So in other words, there is not going to be a whole lot more risk, basically, number one, the amount of the loan is kind of minimal compared to the size of the portfolio, probably, I would imagine; and number two, the customers if something is held in your portfolio, therefore, you are not somebody who is going to be as concerned about this as if it is somebody who is a fly-by-night guy. Mr. Blanton. No. With this asset in our portfolio we understand the customer, we understand the risk we are taking, and we have had various tools that are price-competitive for this customer to be able to handle this loan for him at a more reasonable price. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Perfect. Thank you very much. Mr. Isaac, I loved your testimony. Thank you very much for your comments on Choke Point. I love that, ``the most dangerous program that you have ever seen.'' I am going to keep that quote. But I appreciate your being here today, especially from the standpoint that you are somebody who has not just talked the talk; you have walked the walk. You have been there, you have done that. I was an examiner a long time ago, whenever you were actually FDIC Chairman, so that is how long it has been, but I appreciate your remarks today. And I am just kind of curious--I know you were supportive of the bill--can you tell me--I know there were a couple of remarks with regards to going too far. Does the bill address, in your mind, the problem that we have in the correct way, with DOJ and the FDIC joining together to try and root out entire industries of businesses versus going after the bad actors? Do you think that this bill goes far enough, or too far, or just right? Can you give me an analysis, please? Mr. Isaac. I think it is just about right. And I am not saying that people couldn't find ways to improve it here or there. We can always try to do better on anything. But I think it is just about right. I have heard Mr. Delery's name mentioned several times in this hearing, and I guess he testified this morning. He has a memo dated September 9, 2013, which I would hope that everybody would read, particularly pages 10, 11, and 14, in which he makes some outrageous and very scary statements. For example, this is on page 14: ``We are targeting banks more than payment processors, and payment processors more than merchants.'' Mr. Luetkemeyer. One of the things that-- Mr. Isaac. The theory is that if you target the banks, the banks will run these people out of business, and you don't have to spend money and resources going after the merchants, and he actually says that-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. One of the things that--let me interrupt just a second. Mr. Isaac. Sure. Mr. Luetkemeyer. One of the things that concerns me is the fact that they are doing this under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), and I am sure you have adjudicated this law many times-- Mr. Isaac. Yes. Mr. Luetkemeyer. --and you know that this is supposed to be a bill that is used to provide a defense for the banks rather than for a bill that goes after the banks, which is what they are trying to do. Is that a correct characterization of the law-- Mr. Isaac. The-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. --and what is going on? Mr. Isaac. The provisions they are using were intended to protect the banks-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. Right. Mr. Isaac. --against fraud from-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. And they have flipped the model, haven't they? Mr. Isaac. --and they are being used to punish the banks. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Their own interior--own inside memos indicate that they are not sure they even have the legal authority to do what they are doing. The other Oversight and Reform Committee has that. Mr. Isaac. He says in his own memo that this is dubious. I think it is less than dubious; it is-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. Can you give me a brief overview of what you think will happen? Let's say we pass this legislation, H.R. 4986. What will happen? What will be the response from the banks to this legislation? Mr. Isaac. I'm sorry-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. What will be the response by the banks to this legislation? Are they going to--how will they react to this? Mr. Isaac. Unfortunately, it is not going to be an overnight panacea. When the banks have already thrown people out that are legitimate businesses, it is going to take time to get them back into the banking system. But once the safe harbor is there, the banks are going to be able to make business decisions again, but I think you are going to be very leery, having had the regulators say what they have said about undesirable businesses and risk businesses. I think they are going to be very slow to come back in, but hopefully we can turn this around over time and we can stop the exodus, we can stop legal businesses from being thrown out of the banking system. Mr. Luetkemeyer. And if they do that, they are not going to go back in with somebody who is a bad actor. Mr. Isaac. Pardon? Mr. Luetkemeyer. I say, they are not going to go back into business with somebody who is a bad actor. They are going to pick and choose from all these folks that they have let go; they will go back out and pick all the good ones, wouldn't they? Chairwoman Capito. The gentleman's time-- Mr. Isaac. One would think. Chairwoman Capito. --has expired. We are going to move on because we are-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Capito. --heading up to votes. Mr. Meeks? Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I want to join with what Mr. Heck has said. Balance is, I think, the key to this--to everything, is having the proper balance. And there is no question, I think, that most Members, especially on this committee, recognize that the regulatory burden on smaller and community financial institutions is significant and we need to provide regulatory relief. The key is the balance, and it has to be the right relief to the appropriate sector because entities--there are still risks. Risks still exist in the financial system. The larger banks are still getting bigger, and they are still too-big-to- fail, and the expectation of rising interest rates poses a significant risk to the community financial institutions. So we do have to move quickly, but we also have to be careful, I think, to make sure that it is the relief that is the right relief, is the targeted relief. And that is what we are trying to do here. That is why I agree with Mr. Heck that many of the bills that are up today for discussions are targeted proposals that have gathered support--Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan. And so I congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for--we are all in this together. I want to particularly say, though, that I am supporting, and think that H.R. 3240, by Mr. Pittenger; H.R. 3374, by Mr. Kilmer; H.R. 4626, by the Chair; and H.R. 5062, by my friend, Mr. Perlmutter--all the bills, I think, bipartisan, we are working on together trying to get it right. Sometimes, it takes time to do that. Now, I have had and do have reservations about my friend, Mr. Luetkemeyer's bill, H.R. 4986, although I do have great and strong concerns about the Choke Point and how legal businesses have been impacted by this initiative. But the question is, does it go a little too far? Because I oppose any attempts to weaken the appraisal standards, as, I think, is proposed. I would like to talk to you about that at some point. And let me just start there and maybe I will ask Mr. Stanley, and my question tells you why, has there been any evidence that the existing appraisal regulations have led to restrictions in access to credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers? Because that is where my concerns lie. Mr. Stanley? Mr. Stanley. I am not familiar with any such evidence. And there is substantial evidence that I think appraisal fraud did harm low- and moderate-income buyers prior to the financial crisis. Mr. Meeks. Thank you. And let me just say--let me jump. I just looked at the time. I want to ask Ms. Saunders a question also. I have stated that I have concerns about the way Operation Choke Point has impacted some of the legal entities that have operated within the law. Tell me, do you think that the approach that H.R. 4986 takes is the right approach to deal with this particular problem? Ms. Saunders. No, I don't. I think it would weaken tools against fraud. I think it would give a blank check to entities who happen to have a license but may still be engaged in an illegal activity that banks can stop. I think the reasons that banks choose to close particular accounts are complex and we can't just look at the headlines. There are 17 million Americans in this country who don't have bank accounts, many who have been blacklisted from banks. I am sure we could find some patterns of businesses they are involved in. And banks make their own business decisions about what areas of business they want to be in, things like money transmitting. Unfortunately, all the fraudsters out there, it forces us to be vigilant if we want to stop money going to drug cartels and other illegal activity, we need to be vigilant. Some banks don't want to be in those lines of business. There are areas like debt settlement, the debt relief firms. We have done a lot of work against foreclosure rescue fraud, student loan debt relief scams. Anybody who watches TV sees those, and there is a lot of illegal and fraudulent activity out there. So banks need to be vigilant, but I don't see any widespread evidence of a problem. If there are any miscommunications, I think those can be rectified without legislation. Mr. Meeks. We do have to be vigilant, but unfortunately, what happens is we make laws and we make laws for the bad guys, not for the good. Most of the folks who are sitting at this table all have good business practices. And that is why I say we have to have the balance, because we have to try to make sure that when we do this balance, we don't make laws that then overly negatively impact the good guys. But at the same time, we can't hurt the consumer and the individuals, and that is why I would just like to talk to Mr. Luetkemeyer and some others because I think we have gone a little too far. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman--we have votes. Chairwoman Capito. Mr. Pittenger? Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for calling this really important hearing, which has really clarified so much of how the regulatory environment has impeded the availability of credit and capital to consumers. I served on a community bank board for 10 years and certainly appreciate the impact of what has happened to community banks and to credit unions. What has happened, of course, is we have diluted the availability of those institutions and reduced them another 1,500 banks that aren't there today, aren't there to serve the communities. So, it is a great concern to me. I would like to express thanks to Congresswoman Maloney for cosponsoring with me H.R. 3240, the Regulation D Study Act. Mr. Fecher, you spoke in some degree regarding that study bill. I would like you to elaborate on why you think this legislation is necessary. Mr. Fecher. The legislation is necessary because Regulation D, which I would imagine a lot of folks in this room have never ever heard of, causes unnecessary NSF charges to consumers when they exceed the statutory maximum number of automatic transfers from a savings account to a checking account to cover drafts or debits that may come in. And it is not an uncommon occurrence, especially with the way money moves through the financial system today, that a member of a credit union--which happened at Wright-Patt Credit Union just last week--calls up and says, ``Why did you charge this NSF fee?'' We attempt to explain to them that they exceeded their number of statutorily required automatic transactions of six in the month and they say, ``What?'' And they first think it is the credit union's fault, and then we explain, no, this is a Federal regulation that we have to enforce. And frankly, that makes them madder. So we advocate for the bill, and we think it should be studied. We hope that the outcome of the study is that this tool for monetary policy, that number of transactions could almost be tripled without impacting the use of that regulation in terms of monetary policy. So briefly, that is what that regulation is all about, and we support the study. Mr. Pittenger. Let's put it in context in terms of where we are today with technology, and when this bill went into effect--this regulation went into effect, the rule of six transfers, there has been quite a change. It is just logic to review this today, it seems to me, from where we were before. Mr. Blanton, you are nodding your head. Would you like to make a comment? Mr. Blanton. I do also agree. You are, in fact, penalizing people for properly managing their money. And with this system that it is now, it is archaic from when it was originally put in place, and you make us--it is very difficult for us to compete with nonfinancial institutions that also compete for deposit dollars that don't have these restrictions. Mr. Pittenger. Mr. Clendaniel? Mr. Clendaniel. I definitely agree with those comments. This is a common-sense bill, and an outdated regulation. Mr. Pittenger. How can consumers who are affected by the limitations on withdrawals put on the savings accounts--how are they really affected by this? Mr. Clendaniel. Again, to echo what Mr. Fecher said, it-- there is a lot of confusion, first off, on the consumer's behalf. And they just don't understand the fact that, what does that mean? What does it mean I can only do six this month? I did six last month at the teller line, yet I can only do six online this month. So there is a confusion between where and how they can do those different transactions. Because in their mind, a transfer is a transfer, no matter if they do it by check, by teller, or by online services. Mr. Pittenger. Mr. Isaac, you are nodding. Do you have a comment? Mr. Isaac. I agree. Mr. Pittenger. Oh good. All right. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. Chairwoman Capito. The gentleman yields back. It is the desire of the Chair to finish the hearing before--we have been called for a vote. We have about 7 minutes, and we have 2 questioners left. So, Mr. Barr? Mr. Barr. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Cline, as you know, the Dodd-Frank Act placed finance companies, non-depository institutions, under the jurisdiction of the CFPB, but because of an oversight, the Act did not extend traditional protections of privilege to a variety of information that would be ordinarily disclosed in the course of a supervisory exam, either to the CFPB or to State agencies. Mr. Perlmutter and I have introduced a bipartisan bill called the Examination and Supervisory Privilege Parity Act of 2014 to remedy this situation and to provide regulators and regulated parties with greater certainty about the protections that apply when information is shared to and among regulators. Why is this legislation needed and what kind of disclosures would this foster, in your mind, that do not exist currently? Ms. Cline. State bank regulators and the CSBS are in support of this legislation. We think it is important that privileged information be covered. But in addition to privileged, we would recommend that the language be expanded to include confidentiality. In my home State of West Virginia, information shared with my banking agency is shared under confidentiality rules; it doesn't cover privilege. So that would be our only recommendation, that your legislation also include a protection for confidential information, as well. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Ms. Cline. And for Mr. Blanton, Mr. Vallandingham, and Mr. Isaac, earlier today at another hearing, I shared with the Department of Justice and financial regulators the following story from a Kentucky resident who had received communication from their bank, and the e-mail to our office was as follows: ``Our family--and this is in reference to Operation Choke Point-- company has been in the business of leasing our land to coal producers for decades. Today I returned a call from client services at our bank in Lexington, Kentucky. They asked if we lease land to coal producers that operate surface mines. They said that we are receiving pressure from bank regulators and will no longer do business with us if we have surface mines on our property.'' Now to a man, every one of the regulators and the Department of Justice denied that they are participating in the EPA's war on coal. They denied that, notwithstanding what we know about Operation Choke Point. But my question to you all is, as bankers, does it surprise you that a family business that does business in a politically targeted business, namely, surface mining, would receive that kind of a communication from their bank in light of the regulatory pressures that we are seeing? Mr. Blanton? Mr. Blanton. It doesn't surprise me at all, unfortunately. We are seeing this in a lot of cases, and that wasn't on the list--the FDIC list--that wasn't there. But we are seeing this in a lot of cases, where undue pressure and judgments and opinions of whether it is a good or bad business are now being pushed down to the bank and forcing us to try and take action against customers such as that. Mr. Vallandingham. That is the slippery slope that scares us all. Today, it is these two dozen business; what will it be tomorrow? And at the end of the day, we are going to have to make choices about legal businesses, whether we can bank them or not, and ultimately put ourselves at additional liability. I will take it another step further. It is a supersession of States' rights. In our State, payday lenders aren't legal, so we don't have that issue. But in the State next to us, they are legal. So ultimately, we are going to have to make some real-world decisions that I don't think we should be forced to make. And if somebody is committing fraud, we support the prosecution, but the bank wasn't committing the fraud. The third party was. Mr. Barr. Mr. Isaac? Mr. Isaac. It doesn't surprise me at all, and it scares me. I don't know where we are going. Mr. Barr. I think to your point, Mr. Isaac, that a bank's board and the bank's management is in a much better position to ascertain the reputational risk of that bank than an unaccountable, unelected Federal regulator in Washington, D.C. And the irony of all of this is that under Operation Choke Point, the Department of Justice is disfavoring certain politically unpopular businesses by denying them banking services, but at the same time they issue guidance designed to help illegal business like marijuana dealers get access to banking services. What this tells me is that-- Chairwoman Capito. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Barr. --using prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Justice is picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Chairwoman Capito. Thank you. We are running close on time here. Mr. Barr. Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence. I yield back. Chairwoman Capito. Mr. Royce? Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you holding this hearing. I introduced one of the bills before us here today, alongside the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Murphy, to bring some common-sense reforms to the Office of Financial Research over at the Treasury Department. That bill is H.R. 5037, the OFR Accountability Act. It does ensure improved transparency and better interagency coordination and stronger cybersecurity protections at the OFR. And I think Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have heard constant criticism about the quality of research at the OFR, the lack of real coordination between the Office and Federal financial regulators. And much of the criticism, frankly, is focused on the asset management and financial stability study published in September 2013 that they did. With respect to this report, the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee found that the OFR failed to meaningfully consider the expert analysis provided by the career professional staff at the SEC, resulting in what a group of former regulators has called a flawed analysis of asset managers and fundamental misconceptions about how security markets function. The Oversight & Government Reform Committee concluded that while OFR paid lip service to the SEC staff's suggestions, OFR failed to meaningfully address the important issues flagged in the SEC memorandum. So I think this legislation does it in a thoughtful way. The bill Mr. Murphy and I have put forward is balanced. It is a bipartisan approach that includes reforms to the OFR that, frankly, its inaction absolutely necessitates. So I look forward to moving that bill expeditiously. I do have one question, quickly. Maybe Mr. Clendaniel could speak up on this, but it is on another subject. Madam Chairwoman, if I could ask our credit union witnesses what specific next steps they would like to see this committee take as it relates to NCUA's risk-based capital proposal. Mr. Clendaniel. I don't think I will have enough time to go through all the steps with the time allowed, but I think the one thing that could be done to help all credit unions and all one hundred million members in the country is to include the NCUA proposal into H.R. 4042 and do a stop and study to make sure we know the full impact of what the proposal is and what is also the right proposal for credit unions and for the members. Mr. Royce. Madam Chairwoman, because we have a vote on, perhaps I could put my full opening statement in the record and Mr. Clendaniel could put a full proposal forward. And with that, I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Capito. I thank the gentleman for understanding the time constraints here. I would like to submit for the record statements from the following organizations: the Appraisal Institute; the Consumer Financial Services Association of America; the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors, the American Financial Services Association; Toyota; and the Financial Services Roundtable. I would like to thank everybody for your patience. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. With that, I will declare this hearing adjourned, and I am going to run to my vote. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X July 15, 2014 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]