[House Hearing, 115 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 6, 2018 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 115-98 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] __________ U.S GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 31-474 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin DAVID SCOTT, Georgia STEVE STIVERS, Ohio AL GREEN, Texas RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ANN WAGNER, Missouri ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANDY BARR, Kentucky JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania BILL FOSTER, Illinois LUKE MESSER, Indiana DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio MIA LOVE, Utah DENNY HECK, Washington FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California TOM EMMER, Minnesota JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey LEE M. ZELDIN, New York VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan CHARLIE CRIST, Florida BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio TED BUDD, North Carolina DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana Shannon McGahn, Staff Director Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania, WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Ranking Vice Chairman Member EDWARD R. ROYCE, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina AL GREEN, Texas ANDY BARR, Kentucky KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas DENNY HECK, Washington MIA LOVE, Utah GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan CHARLIE CRIST, Florida BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: June 6, 2018................................................. 1 Appendix: June 6, 2018................................................. 43 WITNESSES Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Day, Steven G., President, American Land Title Association....... 4 Hunt, Richard, President and Chief Executive Officer, Consumer Bankers Association............................................ 6 Prochaska, Kate (Larson), Director, Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, U.S. Chamber of Commerce...................... 7 Shelton, Hilary O., Director, NAACP Washington Bureau, Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Policy, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.............................. 9 Whitaker, Elmer K., Chief Executive Officer, Whitaker Bank Corporation of Kentucky........................................ 11 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Day, Steven G................................................ 44 Hunt, Richard................................................ 61 Prochaska, Kate (Larson)..................................... 73 Shelton, Hilary O............................................ 87 Whitaker, Elmer K............................................ 97 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine: Written statement from the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA)............................. 103 Written statement from the Credit Union National Association (CUNA)..................................................... 130 IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ---------- Wednesday, June 6, 2018 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 2:04 p.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Rothfus, Lucas, Posey, Ross, Pittenger, Barr, Tipton, Williams, Love, Trott, Loudermilk, Kustoff, Tenney, Hensarling, Clay, Maloney, Meeks, Scott, Velazquez, Green, Heck, and Crist. Also present: Representative Duffy. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. I apologize for the coming and going here of everybody, but we had votes on the floor, so there will be some more members coming and going. And obviously, we have got one witness that is still looking for the Rayburn building, apparently, so we will see how that works out. But we do thank our witnesses for being here today, and I think we have got a great panel of folks, and I think we are going to have a great hearing. So this hearing is entitled, ``Improving Transparency and Accountability at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.'' Before I begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing today, and we appreciate your participation and look forward to the discussion. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of delivering an opening statement. As prescribed in Dodd-Frank, the mission of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer protection laws, and to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions. Unfortunately, the Bureau has failed to carry out its mission. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection hasn't regulated based just on Federal consumer protection laws. Under Director Cordray, the agency took upon itself to essentially write law through guidance and regulate through enforcement. Further, the Bureau hasn't worked to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions. This hasn't been a partnership between the Government and the people. Rather, the bureaucrats have worked diligently to eliminate options for Americans verily thinking that they are better equipped than consumers to make financial decisions. Thankfully, Acting Director Mulvaney is striving to foster an environment that promotes transparency, legitimacy, and greater consumer choice. He also would like to have us call the Bureau by its correct name, which is Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, instead of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection hasn't regulated--excuse me. There we go. We will get 'er done. Mr. Mulvaney has committed to a more temperate and data- driven process. He is outlining a vision that for the first time conforms to Congress' mandate. The acting director is to be commended for the progress he has made thus far, but we must recognize that not all reforms can be done administratively. In his latest semiannual report to the President and Congress, Mr. Mulvaney sent a clear message to us: Congress must act in an effort to establish meaningful accountability. Specifically, Acting Director Mulvaney first pointed to the need to fund the Bureau through the congressional appropriations process. Next, subject the Director to the full power of the President's executive authorities. Further, require legislative approval of major Bureau rules. And finally, establish an independent inspector general to oversee the Bureau, its leadership, and its staff. Members of this committee have promoted these very ideas since the inception of the Bureau. I am very pleased to see that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Chairman Tom Graves included all these provisions in his Fiscal Year 2019 Financial Services bill. Today, our distinguished panel will discuss their views on these and other ideas for reform, many of which were also included in title VII in Chairman Hensarling's CHOICE Act. We look forward to a productive conversation of initiative that will increase transparency and ensure that the Bureau focuses more intently on its actual mission, rather than abusing its authorities to promote a political agenda and in actuality does little to protect consumers. The American people deserve a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that enforces law rather than creates it, and that gives power and choice back to the consumers. We thank our witnesses for appearing and look forward to your testimony. With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the panel of witnesses for being here today. For 6 years, America's consumers had a bureau that won significant victories in the name of financial justice. The CFPB was so effective that 29 million consumers received nearly $12 billion in the aftermath of the housing crisis that devolved into a deep recession, a Federal law assigned authority to accept complaints, investigate, and when warranted, take enforcement actions against bad financial actors. Rules affecting financial transactions as large as mortgages and as small as payday loans were finalized after extensive public hearings where lenders and borrowers alike were afforded the opportunity to share their respective views before any decisions were reached. And that is called transparency and accountability. Homeownership was touted by Presidents Clinton and Bush as a means of increasing minority wealth through home equity, but the relaxing of regulations of the housing market by Members of both parties produced the dramatic rip-off of the most vulnerable. Black and brown college grads lost more than 60 percent of their wealth during the 2007-2008 financial crisis because of laxed regulations. These homeowners have not recovered from their losses to this day. In June, the CFPB uncovered discriminatory lending practices by BancorpSouth. According to the Department of Justice, CFPB alleged that BancorpSouth bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by using policies and practices that unlawfully discriminated against African Americans and other residents of predominantly minority communities. The CFPB took the uncommon practice of using secret shoppers in its investigation. The settlement agreement dictates that BancorpSouth pay millions of dollars in relief and civil penalties. And that is called accountability. In 2014, when a company named U.S. Bank illegally billed customers for services they never received, the CFPB ordered that the bank refund these consumers $48 million. And that is called transparency. And so I look forward to this testimony, and I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. Today we welcome the testimony of Mr. Steven Day, President, American Land Title Association; Mr. Richard Hunt, President and CEO of Consumer Bankers Association; Ms. Kate Larson Prochaska, Director, Center for Capital Market Competitiveness, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Hilary Shelton, Director of the Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy, NAACP. And at this moment I would like to recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for purposes of introducing the final witness. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman Luetkemeyer and Ranking Member Clay, it is an honor to introduce my constituent, the CEO of Whitaker Bank, Elmer Keith Whitaker. As a third-generation banker and head of the largest family owned community bank in Kentucky, Mr. Whitaker works every day with Kentucky consumers who have been negatively impacted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and is here today to help Congress better understand what we can do to reform the Bureau to help consumers. Mr. Whitaker, his father Jack, and his late grandfather Elmer, who rose from the coal fields of eastern Kentucky as a coal miner to build a very successful banking business, really represent the best in the financial services industry, not only as successful bankers, but also as philanthropists whose charitable activities and community involvement reflect their strong faith and their commitment to lifting up the people of Kentucky, and we thank you for that. So from financing a car loan, donating money to establish a new YMCA, or helping a family purchase a home, to the University of Kentucky Whitaker Bankshot, which is my favorite, that supports the Cawood Ledford Scholarship Fund, community banks are critical to our towns, and I am pleased to welcome Mr. Whitaker here today. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentleman. And we want to thank and welcome our witnesses. Just a little bit of a tutorial on the timing mechanism, the lights in front of you. Each one of you has 5 minutes to give your presentation. The light when it turns green, means go. Please pull the microphones to you. Those boxes in front of you do move forward, so please pull them forward because we like to have you very close to the microphones. It works very well that way. And when a light comes on and it is yellow, that means you have 1 minute to wrap up, and when it is red, we need to stop and move on. So with that, Mr. Day, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and you may begin. STATEMENT OF STEVEN G. DAY Mr. Day. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Lacy Clay, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Steven Day. I am the President of National Agency Operations for Fidelity National Title Group. I am testifying today in my role as President of the American Land Title Association (ALTA). ALTA believes that the best step Congress can take to improve the accountability and transparency at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is require that the agency provide the businesses it regulates with written reliable guidance on how to comply with the law and protects consumers in real world scenarios. As I travel the country talking with small business members, I have learned a simple truth: More information is never a bad thing when it comes to decisionmaking. This is why we urge Congress to pass H.R. 5534, the Give Useful Information to Define Effective Compliance Act, introduced by Representatives Sean Duffy and Ed Perlmutter. This bipartisan bill creates a process for the Bureau to ensure formal and reliable written guidance on how to comply with its regulations. In May, Acting Director Mulvaney spoke to our members. He mentioned his philosophy that the Bureau should tell companies the rules of the road and provide concrete guidance and examples prior to enforcement. Guidance helps people and businesses make more informed decisions on how to comply with law in real life. This differs from former regulations that implement and prescribe laws. Guidance can come in the form of advisory opinions, bulletins, no action letters, statements of policy, and answers to frequently asked questions. These tools can apply widely to guide an entire industry like a bulletin or be narrow and specific to a single person, like an IRS private letter ruling. Clear reliable guidance and examples are important for two reasons. First, it provides businesses with a solid basis for making decisions and investments that they know will not harm consumers or lead to potential enforcement actions and fines. Second, guidance improves the effectiveness of regulators' supervision by providing a reference point for judging business practices for compliance. Our industry acutely felt the need for guidance when implementing TRID, where both the quality and quantity of the Bureau's guidance was lacking. Hundreds of questions arose as we implemented this rule. Rather than answer these questions in writing, the Bureau hosted five webinars. The problem with these webinars is that from onset, staff read a disclaimer telling us not to rely on their answers. At the same time, the Bureau drafted 11 sample disclosures reflecting generic real estate transactions. Despite their usefulness, the Bureau refused to develop additional samples of more complex transactions, such as construction loans and FHA (Federal Housing Administration) and VA (Veterans Administration) loans. The GUIDE (Give Useful Information to Define Effective) Compliance Act would require the Bureau to have a standard process for assessing these requests and timelines for responding to them. In the past, the Bureau refused to publish guidance under the belief that saying less to the companies it regulates will provide them with more flexibility. This was the case with the Bureau's three-page memo that reminded banks they needed to oversee their third-party service providers. Instead of providing flexibility, it had the opposite effect and led to confusion. Lenders tried to read the Bureau's tea leaves and developed compliance processes that reduced consumer choice or treated small businesses the same as large national firms. A more valuable bulletin would provide banks and nonbanks with examples of vendor management programs based on different risks. This is what the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) did in their comparable bulletins. I also mention to you ALTA's support of a commission for more bipartisan leadership at the Bureau. And last, we want to applaud this committee and the House for passing the bipartisan TRID (TILA RESPA Integrated Disclosure) Improvement Act. The TRID Improvement Act fixes one of the most confusing requirements of the Bureau's mortgage disclosure rule and a main topic of questions the Bureau did not address in guidance. We urge the Senate to follow the House's lead on this important bill. Thank you for offering us this opportunity to share our views on how to improve the Bureau. Compliance is about more than protecting consumers; it protects a company's reputation, financial well-being, and employee morale. As an industry predominantly made up of small and medium-sized businesses, we need a regulator that helps remove the gray. We need a regulator that matches simple and clear regulations with helpful and illustrative guidance and examples. The GUIDE Compliance Act makes us part of the Bureau's DNA, and we urge Congress to pass this legislation. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Day can be found on page 44 of the Appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Day. And one little housekeeping thing right quick before we move on. Without objection, each of the written statements will be made part of the record. So with that, Mr. Hunt, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF RICHARD HUNT Mr. Hunt. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Clay, and members of the committee, a very good afternoon. Thanks for the invitation to discuss the importance of bringing increased transparency and accountability to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. My name is Richard Hunt, and I am President of the Consumer Bankers Association (CBA). Our members operate in all 50 States, provide $4 trillion in consumer loans, serve 140 customers, and employ 1.7 million people in the United States. Let me say from the onset, CBA and our members support the mission of the Bureau, the mission to protect consumers and take action against companies that break the law. That is why I am happy to be here today to talk about the ways to strengthen and to depoliticize the Bureau. When Congress created the Bureau, it was granted jurisdiction of over 11,000 banks and credit unions, as well as countless nondepository institutions. It was given unprecedented rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement powers for nearly every financial institution and virtually every financial consumer product. All that power was given to one single director, which means one person decides all enforcement actions. One person decides all rules. One person controls every dollar of their $600 million budget and has the power to adjudicate appeals of their own enforcement decisions. It also means the next director has the sole authority to undo every one of these actions, like a political pendulum, swinging with each new Administration. As Congress contemplates changes to the Bureau, any meaningful discussion should start with the Bureau's leadership structure. Congress should create a bipartisan Senate-confirmed commission to ensure all views, voices, and opinions are given a seat at the table. Also to achieve greater balance and stability for consumers and the industry and in an attempt to depoliticize the Bureau. I want to thank Representatives Ross, Sinema, Wagner, Scott, Luetkemeyer, Gonzalez, and McHenry for their bipartisan approach in introducing and supporting legislation to achieve this goal. They are not the only ones who believe the commission is the right way to go. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation to enact a commission at the Bureau, and as a reminder, as the then Dodd-Frank bill was moving through the House and this committee in 2009, it contained a five-person bipartisan commission. Acting Director Mulvaney; former FDIC Chair, Sheila Bair; members of this committee; and the American people in a recent Morning Consult poll all support or have supported a commission over a sole director. In Mr. Mulvaney's testimony before this committee in April, he expressed support for a commission and also outlined four other recommendations. Number one, he recommended creating an independent inspector general at the Bureau. CBA fully supports that endeavor. He also recommended placing the Bureau under congressional appropriations. In the absence of a bipartisan commission and other meaningful reforms, CBA supports this recommendation. He also recommended making the director fireable at will. We believe this would increase the overt political nature of the Bureau. Finally, he recommended congressional approval of major rulemaking. Our member institutions need clarity, and requiring congressional approval could create uncertainty. Also, Congress already has the Congressional Review Act authority to overturn rulemaking. Looking beyond those four recommendations, CBA also supports the Protecting Consumers from Frivolous Claims Act, the GUIDE Act, and ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act). Improving the financial lives of consumers is a goal that unites lawmakers, regulators, and the industry. There are many changes that can be made to enhance the functioning of the Bureau and increase access to credit for consumers. But improving the Government structure of the Bureau underpins them all. A bipartisan commission of the Bureau would depoliticize it, bring long-term stability, and benefit consumers and small businesses. We stand ready to work with Congress, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt can be found on page 61 of the Appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. Ms. Prochaska, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KATE (LARSON) PROCHASKA Ms. Prochaska. Good afternoon, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Clay, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Kate Larson Prochaska, Director at the Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness (CCMC) at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where I lead consumer finance issues. The Chamber is the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of every size, sector, and region. Thank you for holding this important and timely hearing about improving transparency and accountability at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. We at the Chamber have long advocated for improvements to this influential agency and are grateful for the opportunity to share our views here today on behalf of the businesses we represent. Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act created the Bureau to consolidate consumer protection functions under one roof. We strongly believe in the Bureau's statutory mission to, quote, seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services, and that the market for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. However, we believe the Bureau lost sight of portions of their mandate, namely the directives to foster transparent and competitive markets and to ensure that all consumers have access to markets for the consumer financial products. Indeed, the lack of accountability of the Bureau led to an abuse and lack of process that made it difficult to meet this mandate and to provide certainty needed for consumer protection. Since the Bureau's inception, we tried to work with the new leadership and create a trustworthy dialog between industry stakeholders and policymakers. However, we were disappointed to find our insight seemed more perfunctory rather than seriously considered. With new leadership there is an opportunity to make the Bureau a more mature, transparent, and accountable agency. Only with this approach will the Bureau adequately fulfill its entire mandate. The Chamber deeply supports strong consumer protections and a robust, transparent marketplace of consumer products and services. This is why this past March, we released a comprehensive agenda to reform the Bureau. In the report, we noted that any consumer protection agency, including the Bureau, has a three-part mission: One, ensure consumers have access to the marketplace and choice in products and services. Two, promote the availability of information that consumers can use to make informed decisions. And three, provide protection against bad actors. We made six principal reforms that encompassed 23 individual recommendations to offer a series of concrete steps to improve the Bureau. One, provide clear rules of the road. Two, enforce the law fairly. Three, educate consumers with accurate data-driven information. Four, commit to transparency. Five, avoid regulatory duplication and burden. And six, structure the Bureau for long-term success. The 23 recommendations are discussed extensively in my written testimony, and the full report can be found on the CCMC website. We have also been providing feedback to the Bureau on how to create a more transparent and accountable agency through recent comment letters. We thank the Bureau for releasing their call to evidence, which is a compilation of 12 separate requests for informations to audit the agency. To date, we filed six comment letters addressing civil investigative demands, adjudication proceedings, the enforcement process, supervision process, external engagements, and the complaint database. We look forward to filing our rulemaking comment tomorrow and the subsequent comments through July 16. This brings me to the Bureau's 13th semiannual report that was issued in April. In his opening letter, Acting Director Mulvaney suggested four statutory changes to the Bureau: One, fund the Bureau through appropriations. We have long supported putting the Bureau under true congressional oversight and included this in our reform agenda. A CCMC Morning Consult poll found that 66 percent of those surveyed recognized the importance of appropriations to provide effective checks and balances over Governmental agencies. Two, require legislative approval of major Bureau rules. While we do not take a position on this legislation, we do think there should be more oversight. Three, ensure the Director answers to the President in the exercise of executive authority. We also believe that a commission structure would be a more balanced approach, however, there should not be insulation from the Presidential authority. Create an independent inspector general for the Bureau. Just based on sheer bandwidth, an IG would be better instead of looking at the Federal Reserve as well. I look forward to working with the committee and this subcommittee on legislative proposals that make the Bureau more mature, accountable, and transparent. Thank you again to the Chairman, Ranking Member, and committee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to take any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Prochaska can be found on page 73 of the Appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Ms. Prochaska. And, Mr. Shelton, you are welcome. I saw from your bio you are from Missouri, so welcome to a fellow Missourian. You may begin. Five minutes. Please turn on your microphone, sir. STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON Mr. Shelton. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Clay, and esteemed members of this subcommittee. Thank you so much for inviting me here today to testify and requesting the input of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). We currently have more than 500,000 card- carrying members, 2,200 membership units across the Nation. We have members in every one of the 50 States, as well as units on military bases throughout the world. Earlier this year, the National Fair Housing Alliance released a report which demonstrated that racial and ethnic minorities are, on average, charged a higher interest rate, offered fewer financial options, and subjected to submissive and disrespectful treatment more frequently than their Caucasian counterparts who had lower credit scores. In fact, on average, non-White testers who experienced discrimination would have paid almost $2,700 more over the life of a loan than well- qualified White testers. The important study demonstrates the continuing economic discrimination faced by people of color every day. It is because of this ongoing bias and the resulting persistent wealth gap between people of color and Whites in America that financial empowerment and the economic security of communities served and represented by the NAACP has been and continues to be a cornerstone of our national policy agenda. We need a strong, robust, and vibrant Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which operates as it was intended by law. Americans need facts and data which they can make informed decisions. We also need protections from unscrupulous predatory individuals and companies; industry needs to know where corrections and their practices are needed. The policymakers need to have concrete indisputable facts from which it makes laws and regulations. In my written testimony, I have made 10 suggestions which, if taken, will allow the CFPB to continue on its current important trajectory to protect and educate Americans everywhere. By brevity's sake, I will summarize my suggestions with this: Suggestion No. 1, do not subject the CFPB to congressional appropriations process. This will threaten its independence and effectiveness. No. 2, promulgate the short-term loan rule which covers payday and car title loans as originally crafted and implemented in the time set. Payday and car title lenders tend to concentrate their abusive operations which charge an average of almost 400 percent equivalent of interest and fees for a 2- to 3-week loan in communities of color. No. 3, Reassert the enforcement powers of the Office of Fair Lending. By moving the Office of Fair Lending, the CFPB is demonstratably weakening its efforts to fight discrimination in the consumer financial marketplace, even as the Bureau returned over $400 million from discriminatory financial institutions to American families who have been overcharged and denied credit. No. 4, do not require explicit congressional approval of any proposed regulation in order for the rule to take effect. This requirement will create crippling barriers to administrative actions necessary to protect the public and implement the law. No. 5, do not revise or reduce access to CFPB's complaint database. The current public complaint database is a tool that empowers individuals to inform and protect themselves in the financial services marketplaces. No. 6, retain and reinvigorate the Office of Student and Young Consumers. To close this office is an incredibly short- sighted move with far reaching consequences which will harm millions of students who are already struggling with debt or those who are seeking an affordable higher education. No. 7, increase, do not decrease, the amount of information and the number of mortgage lenders required to make public their loans under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Without this crucial data, regulators and others like the NAACP are once again left without the full information we need to determine patterns in loan terms and loan amounts that could increase costs and risk of foreclosure for borrowers. No. 8, retain a single director of the CFPB as opposed to a commission. A single director facilitates effective decisionmaking and ensures a clear point of responsibility. A single director can often move quickly to respond when a new national threat has been discovered. No. 9, do not create a situation in which the director of the CFPB must be responsive to the whims of a President. Make sure that he or she retains independence. And No. 10, reject efforts to establish an independent inspector general for the CFPB. You see, the CFPB already has an IG shared with the Federal Reserve within which the CFPB is housed. To create an independent IG would be of questionable value and debatable as to the use of taxpayers' money. In closing, I would just like to say, reemphasizing the need of a CFPB to stay on course, to remain a strong, transparent, and robust tool for protecting all consumers in the often confusing and too often predatory world of financial services. Dodd-Frank was enacted and the CFPB was created to respond in response to the economic crisis of 2008. As of late, we appear to be going backward in a pre-Dodd-Frank deregulation much to the detriment and the potential economic ruin of the American consumer. We have not forgotten that many of our people and communities are still hurting from the recession of 2008. Many will never own a home again, have a nest egg pass or be able to pass the nest egg on to future generations as a result. We have not forgotten many of our people were targeted by unscrupulous, nefarious lenders who had no concern for the economically destructive-- Let me just say in closing, sir, I look forward to your questions. I think you get my point. [The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton can be found on page 87 of the Appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Mr. Whitaker, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ELMER K. WHITAKER Mr. Whitaker. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Clay, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Elmer Whitaker. In addition to being CEO of Whitaker Bank, I am President of Whitaker Bank Corporation of Kentucky, a family owned bank holding company founded in 1978 and located in Lexington, Kentucky. We operate two banks and Kentucky Trust Company, which offers wealth management and insurance services with 45 locations in 17 counties and total assets of $1.75 billion. I am pleased to be here today to share my views on improving transparency and accountability at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Before speaking on this subject, I would like to first commend Chairman Hensarling and Members of the House of Representatives for their support of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. This commonsense legislation is long overdue. This new law will help community banks like mine better serve our customers and communities. I would also like to thank Congressman Andy Barr for his steadfast support on a number of provisions in the bill. In particular, his leadership on creating a safe harbor for qualified mortgage products. As a community banker, I fully support effective consumer protection. As you are aware, proposals have been introduced to replace the position of director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a bipartisan five-member commission, similar to other financial regulatory agencies. We believe a commission would broaden the perspective on rulemaking and enforcement activity of the Bureau. It would provide appropriate checks and balances and a better appeals process. The Bureau has been given the broad authority that can alter financial markets, but it lacks accountability that comes with budget oversight. Today, the Bureau is funded by a fixed portion of the Federal Reserve's total operating expenses. I believe this should be changed to have the Bureau funded through the regular congressional appropriations process. This would allow the very consumers who the Bureau was designed to protect to hold it accountable through their elected officials. Similarly, we support efforts to create transparency by creating an independent inspector general. The inspector general's function is to serve as an independent unit that conducts audits, investigations, and reviews programs and operations. I would hope the CFPB would welcome an independent review of its operations. This is generally deemed a best practice by the other regulatory agencies. Mr. Chairman, as I noted, my bank supports consumer protection. However, even the best intended regulations must be reviewed to ensure they are meeting their intended purpose. Bank regulatory changes have a big impact on the cost of providing banking products and services and can adversely impact consumers. In many communities, appraisal costs alone for a home loan have doubled since the implementation of Dodd- Frank. Many community banks simply lack the resources and staffing to stay up to date with the rapidly changing rules. The cost to implement training is overtaxing, but the time it takes to conduct the training is worse. This is time taken away from serving the daily needs of their customers. It is the consumer that suffers in that scenario. The rules in Dodd-Frank have caused some banks to stop offering certain loan products, and some banks have been forced to merge with other banks. As reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, from the first quarter of 2011 to the first quarter of 2018, the number of commercial banks in Kentucky has been reduced by 20 percent. The number of commercial banks nationally has been reduced by 24 percent. Simply stated, community banks continue to be the backbone of Kentucky and hometowns all across America. My bank's presence means we have a personal stake in the economic growth, health, and vitality of the communities we serve. By eliminating unnecessary impediments and ensuring that the agencies that oversee our products are fully transparent, Congress can help stem the tide of the community bank consolidation driven by unnecessary regulation which negatively impacts every community across the United States. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitaker can be found on page 97 of the Appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. I appreciate your input this afternoon. And with that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes as we begin our questioning portion of the hearing. Let me just begin by asking you a question with regards to data collection. I know that Director Mulvaney made the comment--or when he first came in, suspended the ability or the collection of information. And recently I think as last week, he went back to beginning to collect some information again because of their concerns with regards to protecting information. Are any of you concerned about that? Do any of you have some ideas about that particular action of the Director? Ms. Prochaska. Sure. I will start. We definitely have concerns about that. We all know that the Federal Government is not immune to data breaches, and to have everything in one spot for the hackers to come in I think is a huge concern. I think for most consumers who are getting a mortgage, they would be surprised that all of their mortgage data is then put into a giant database. So I think for a lot of folks that would be a little bit upsetting to them, so I do hope that the privacy protections are adequately in place. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I know that Director Cordray made the statement that he collects 80 percent of all the credit card transactions of this country, which is very, very, very disturbing to me, so I appreciate the comment. Ms. Prochaska, you made the comment during your discussion here in your presentation, and I went back through your testimony because I was concerned when you didn't indicate that you were supporting a cost-benefit analysis of something. But in your testimony, you did make that comment as one of your recommendations. So would you like to elaborate on the importance of having a cost-benefit analysis on all the rules and regulations? Ms. Prochaska. Absolutely. I think a lot of the rule writers formerly at the CFPB, it is hard to know how it is going to happen in practice, and so a robust cost-benefit analysis, which is conducted at most of the other agencies, is critical to see how this is actually going to impact consumers and small business organizations. So I think that is a preeminent concern that we have at the Chamber, especially because we are so focused on economic growth and how that is going to be in the marketplace. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Mr. Whitaker, would you like to elaborate on how much it costs you to comply with some of these rules and regulations and guidance that the CFPB has put out? Mr. Whitaker. I would simply state that as a small bank, in terms of national presence, it has significantly changed my cost structure. Hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just in compliance staff has been added since the beginning of Dodd- Frank. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Have you changed your business model as a result of this? Mr. Whitaker. I'm sorry? Chairman Luetkemeyer. Have you changed your business model as a result of this? Mr. Whitaker. I have been forced to, yes. I have had to add locations just to house the staff to process work. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Mr. Hunt, I know you have lots of members that are dealing with these additional costs. Can you give us a little--elaborate on some of the costs that your members are incurring, or the total amount perhaps, of what CFPB is costing? Mr. Hunt. Yes. I don't have the total amount, but I will tell you, in the first quarter of next year, we are going to be giving to the regulators all the new HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) requirements that is going to increase it two- to threefold from previously. So we are collecting information. There was a report earlier by the inspector general a couple--8 months ago, I believe, saying there were not enough safeguards. We fully supported Mr. Mulvaney taking down the collection of the data for a while until those safeguards are there. Thankfully, he has concluded the safeguards are now in place. Chairman Luetkemeyer. One of the questions I have got is, several of you have all advocated for the commission. And I know that Mr. Shelton's testimony actually made the comment that he supported, actually, something that would be illegal, quite frankly, because the Congressional Review Act says that Congress should be presented with all rules and guidance to be able to be approved, and in his testimony he suggests that that not happen, which quite frankly, would be illegal. So I would point that out to Mr. Shelton and to all of you. From the standpoint that I know recently we passed in the Senate and now in the House a couple weeks ago, and it was signed a week before last by the President, with regards to the congressional Review Act, a recision--a rescinding of a rule that was done by CFPB with regards to indirect auto lending. So would any of you have some other rules or regulations that you are familiar with that need to be reviewed under the CRA and perhaps rescinded? And if you don't, I have got a homework assignment for each one of you. Mr. Hunt. Well, I don't think there are any more rules that fall within the 60-day calendar. They just obviously lead to arbitration last year by a landslide 50 to 50 vote in the Senate. I can't think of any rule that is forthcoming by the Bureau that will require a CRA rule. Chairman Luetkemeyer. OK. Ms. Prochaska. One guidance I think that might be worth looking at is the vendor management guidance. I think that that might be tantamount to a rule, and GAO might want to take a look at that. Chairman Luetkemeyer. OK. All right. Very good. Well, thank you. So again, I will make mention of that when we close the hearing that we do have a homework assignment for you. OK. Thank you very much. My time is up. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, the Ranking Member, for 5 minutes. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to point out that I wanted to welcome a young man from my hometown, St. Louis, and our State of Missouri, back to the committee, Mr. Shelton, who I will start with. As you know, the Center for Investigative Reporting recently published results from their extensive analysis of lending throughout America, and found modern-day redlining in more than 60 metro areas across the country. And this is despite the fact that most banks, some 99 percent of banks get passing grades on their Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA exams, even though that law was intended to help combat discriminatory lending practices. And now, Mr. Mulvaney is reorganizing the CF--the Consumer Bureau's Fair Lending Office, eliminating its enforcement capabilities and diminishing fair lending as an important priority of the Bureau. So, Mr. Shelton, will Congress be helping to combat discriminatory lending or weakening those efforts if we advance proposals to radically reform and weaken the Bureau? Mr. Shelton. Well, it would certainly weaken them, Congressman. And it is very good to see you. Indeed, we have not forgotten the challenges and problems that we had that actually pushed us to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or pass the Dodd-Frank reform bill as we did. We saw what happened with the so-called protections that were in place and, quite frankly, the disparate impact that they had on racial and ethnic minorities, women-owned houses and other properties, and other problems in our communities. Anything can be done to actually step back or put back in place the lack of oversight and protections would be derelict, to say the least. In essence, it has not been that long. It has not been that long since we sat before this very committee, quite frankly, with other victims of those who were not provided the protection of regulatory oversight that lost their homes, that found themselves victim to predatory lending processes and practices throughout the country. We need these protections to prevent this from happening again. Mr. Clay. OK. The regulators are discussing modernizing CRA, though some seem to be more focused on making those CRA exams easier. Does that make sense to you that now is the time to make CRA exams easier, even though most banks pass their exams, and yet we have pervasive redlining throughout this country? Mr. Shelton. Clearly, with the problems that we have now, doing anything to weaken those very protections, again, would be extremely problematic. It is moving in the wrong direction. The reason we need a robust, powerful, comprehensive, and transparent process that is covered by the CFPB is for these very reasons. You were, I believe, here when we heard from many of the victims of the forms of discrimination that we are very well trying to provide protections for. It would be outrageous to make things weaker and easier for this kind of discriminatory practice to continue. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Mr. Hunt, do you believe that the time has come and gone for the Fair Housing Act and collecting HMDA data or have we-- or do you think we have closed the disparity gaps in mortgage lending and the way it impacts certain communities of color? And is everything OK in the mortgage lending? Mr. Hunt. Mr. Clay, thank you very much for the question. First off, let me say, discrimination is just morally wrong. It should not be allowed, and it cannot be allowed. It is totally unacceptable. There is no place for it. Credit profile is what we are looking at when we are trying to find somebody who is creditworthy. We are about to send to the regulators tons of information under HMDA. We were not exempt under the Crapo bill, like other institutions were, so we are fully in compliance. We are fully in compliance with the ECOA and the fair housing law as well. So, look, we don't want to have any discrimination. We want to make sure our customers are happy and being served, and if they choose to have a mortgage, make sure they are creditworthy to make sure they can afford the monthly payment. And I go back to what you addressed in your opening comments. We want the Bureau to be very strong and diligent as well with us, so we are not trying to weaken the Bureau at all in this regard. Mr. Clay. So can we do both? Can we ensure that we close the disparity gap, while still correcting, making corrections at the Bureau? Can those both run simultaneously? Mr. Hunt. I have no doubt in my mind that Acting Director Mulvaney is going to make sure no one is discriminated against. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Vice Chairman of the committee, Mr. Rothfus, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Day, in your testimony, you discussed the importance of having clear rules of the road. Unfortunately, until Acting Director Mulvaney took over, the Bureau tended to prefer ambiguous rules that provided a platform for broad regulation by enforcement. Can you provide an example of how uncertainty about the rules of the road has hurt the members of the American Land Title Association? Mr. Day. Certainly. Probably the prime example is with regard to, in my testimony, the three-page memo with regard to lenders; just reminding lenders as to the requirements to police their third-party vendors. There was not a lot of explanation concerning that, and it left two issues in that regard. One from the lending community. They were unsure as to the best way to control that. Are we able to control based on a sizing of that? Do we treat an agent who has five employees in a rural community the same way we do with someone who has locations in 45 States and hundreds of locations? So lenders tended to shrink their controls and actually impact the consumer choice. On the other side, with our members, they look at it and say which--where do we have to go to be able to be in compliance? And some sought out our best practices as a way of going forward. We could not get clarification from the Bureau as to whether or not this was a viable way for the lenders to feel comfortable that third-party vendors, our members were going to be in compliance with the Act. So it added additional expenses, additional concerns, the threat of enforcement. So it just--that uncertainty really impacted a number of especially small businesses. Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Hunt, in your testimony, you wrote that the Bureau, quote, ``has an unprecedented scope of authority over almost the entire universe of consumer financial service providers, ultimately touching almost all Americans.'' Can you describe some of the consumer impacts that have followed from the Bureau's aggressive use of its broad authority? Mr. Hunt. Sure. There are many I could describe. I will start with small dollar lending. They just wrote a rule not too long ago that would not make it desirable for our banks to get into small dollar lending. You have to keep in mind, some 50 percent of all Americans in this country do not have $500 in their bank account to meet an emergency need. We need to be in that space. I think they also played politics with that rule. They exempted in financial institutions doing less than 2,500 loans. Now, when it comes to consumer protection, I think every consumer should be protected, not based upon where you bank. So you can bank at Bank of America and have one set of rules, but if you go to the local community in Kentucky, there will be a different set of rules over there for the consumer. Not for the bank, but for the consumer. So I think that has severely impacted the short-term liquidity needs when Americans need it most to meet a financial need. Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Prochaska, we are all committed to ensuring that the rules and enforcement actions taken by the Bureau are fair to all parties and maximize consumer protection. Putting the Bureau on appropriations will go a long way toward improving the responsiveness of this agency and enhancing the integrity of its rulemaking. Do you believe that putting the Bureau on appropriations would in any way harm consumer financial protection? Ms. Prochaska. Thank you very much for the question, first. And second, I do not think it would harm consumer protection in any way, shape, or form. The rules are on the books. Mr. Mulvaney has made it absolutely clear that he is a steward of the law, that he is going to execute the law fairly and accurately. Just because the Fair Lending Office has now been rolled into the Director's office doesn't necessarily mean that a ECOA has been repealed, the Fair Housing Act has been repealed, HMDA has been repealed. I think there is a discussion, and there can be an argument made that that has actually made it even more of a priority. So I think that having some sort of oversight over the Bureau would be much better in the long term for everyone. Mr. Rothfus. I have long been an advocate of putting it on the appropriations process and also having a commission, because this goes to some of the core principles of our country, our republic. There is a whole notion of self-rule and self-government, and recalling Abraham Lincoln even talking about Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and this does happen through elected representatives. It has to do with the nature of law in this country and the three branches of Government we have. The Executive branch, to enforce the law; the Legislative branch, to make the law; the Judiciary branch, to adjudicate. And when you see an agency that would make rules that the people are not making, that really goes against, to me, the principles of self-rule and self-government. Certainly, a commission I could think be as effective as a single director, perhaps more effective at going after discrimination. You have a diversity of ideas that are going to be exchanged among multiple commissioners. So again, I thank everybody for participating in this hearing, and it has been very informative. Thank you. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from Georgia. The distinguished Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Chairman. This is a very important and very timely, timely hearing. And I have been sitting here and I have been very impressed by the diversity of thought on this most pressing of financial services industry. The CFPB represents the interests and the protections of over 330 million Americans. They cover the entire waterfront of our financial services system. It is the greatest financial service system in the world, but it is a very complex system. It is a very diversified system. Now, the CFPB has done some great things, no question about that, but here is the situation. The CFPB has become a political fire pit. Now, let me explain what I mean. And I hear Mr. Shelton who brought some excellent points, but here, we have a CFPB that is constructed to shift and sway with political winds. All of what Mr. Shelton was so grateful for occurred when the sole director reported to and was authorized by President Barack Obama, but he is no longer President. And so we have another President. And they have another sole director that is coming in and trying to erase everything that the previous Administration did. That is why we are in the fix we are in. And that is why when we worked hard to put the CFPB together, we did it as a commission for a reason: So it wouldn't be subjected to this every 4 years. That Administration comes in, changes what it does. Here is a headline my staff just handed me, and it just came over from the Associated Press: Mulvaney disbands Consumer Advisory Board. The only simple thing there. That is gone. There has been a lessening of the fair housing; changes made. So here is my point: We worked hard to put this together, this commission, and let me just say, Elizabeth Warren, the President, Barney Frank, all of us here, most of us, all of us here for sure, worked on this, passed it out as a commission. But when it got over in the Senate, something happened. That was, in my estimation--and even Barney Frank came back and said, man, this is deceitful what they have done, they changed this. And you know what happened? They never even had the courtesy or the decency in the Senate to bring it back over here. They passed it at that. But President Obama is not going to be President for life. It changes, and so we have a measure that is bipartisan. Let me just tell you, let's suppose the Securities and Exchange Commission wasn't a commission or the Commodities and Futures and Trading Commission wasn't a commission. Look, if you want stability, if you want accountability, that has to come from the entity that birthed it. We did in Congress. We must in Congress reclaim our position of responsibility in bringing that accountability. And so we have a bill I want to mention. It is House Resolution 5266. Now, we all can come together and figure this out with this piece of legislation and do it the way it should have been in the first place and make it a commission with direct responsibility, shared responsibility and authority with the Executive branch and us, but the buck will stop here where it was born. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired, and we appreciate his eloquence. With that, we go to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. Lucas is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I would like to, with our witnesses, turn back to the issues I hear back at home. And, with this, I would like to begin with you, Mr. Hunt. I hear frustrations from our bank and credit union folks that multiple regulators are in their offices asking the same questions. And this has the appearance of a lack of coordination and redundancy. Could you share with us what you hear from your members with respect to regulatory coordination? And do you think more can be done to improve the communication or, at the very least, try to reduce some of the duplication of effort? Mr. Hunt. So thank you very much for the question. I will tell you, unfortunately, there is or there has not been any regulatory coordination. I do believe, in the last couple of years, each of the agencies has been trying to justify their existence, trying to prove their value. I will give you a perfect example under cross-selling. The OCC and the CFPB and the FDIC took upon themselves, rightly so, to go to our banks and examine cross-selling practices. I understand that. It was very important. It was something that needed to be done. However, at several of our banks, you would have the OCC and the CFPB in the bank at the same time asking sometimes for the same identical documents. Sometimes one of the agencies would hear what the other agency wanted, ask for the same information, and said, ``We need more than that.'' That is absurd. There is no reason you can't have one regulator in there supervising us at all times. And I am hoping, under the new heads of the agencies, that is something they will address quickly. Mr. Lucas. Follow up on that, if I could, Ms. Prochaska. I believe your report included a little bit about the CFPB in particular duplicating the activities of the other agencies. Can you describe some of your findings and ways in which the Bureau might improve on that duplication? Ms. Prochaska. Yes. Thank you so much for the question, Mr. Lucas. To echo Richard's point, I think we get a lot of feedback from bankers that there is inconsistent guidance within the agency, different standards. So that can be incredibly confusing, especially from an examiner level. And then one note, at least--actually, two examples, one of which being the small dollar rule. As we know, the OCC and the FDIC eradicated the deposit advance product back in 2013 with their guidance. The OCC has now repealed that guidance, and we hope that the FDIC will follow suit. But then the CFPB has their small dollar rule hanging out there as well. And so then that creates confusion in the marketplace. When, as Mr. Hunt mentioned earlier, according to the Federal Reserve, 40 percent of the country can't foot an emergency $400 expense, that, to me, is a travesty. And the fact that there still is going to be that demand, even if there isn't the small dollar loans out there. So we need to be able to get consumers into those small dollar loans. Another piece of duplication that I think has been a little bit frustrating for industry both in banks and in online lenders and other innovative companies is the confusion around no action letters and who is minding the store when it comes to innovation? Is there going to be an OCC fintech charter? Is the FDIC going to get into the space. So those are two things that have been very confusing. Mr. Lucas. Mr. Whitaker, in your testimony, you also mention whether there might be some duplication by the Bureau when it comes to HMDA disclosures. If someone were to do an analysis to the rule surrounding HMDA, do you, as a community banker, manager think that the analysis would find significant duplication between CFPB and the other agencies? Mr. Whitaker. What we have seen is the trickle down of CFPB guidelines trickling down into the other agencies. While they are not always applicable to a financial institution of my size, I am often held to the standard of larger institutions because of that trickle-down effect. Mr. Lucas. Mr. Whitaker, one last question to you. And there is lots of discussion in different quarters about the idea potentially on the table of establishing an independent inspector general at CFPB. As a regulated entity of CFPB, do you have any sense of how an inspector general would affect institutions like yours when interacting with the Bureau? Mr. Whitaker. I think it would add stability. That is the number one thing. It adds accountability to the CFPB so that perhaps we don't have the trickle down, and the rules stay on the levels and platforms they were intended to stay when the CFPB was created out of congressional law. I think ultimately you have to have that accountability. I have internal auditors. I have external auditors. I have State regulators. I have the Federal Reserve as my primary regulators. And it adds accountability. And I think you have to have the inspector general to run those audits for the CFPB just for that same checks-and-balance system. Mr. Lucas. One last thought, Mr. Chairman, if you will tolerate me. Being one of those folks who was here for the conference committee process on Dodd-Frank, I would simply note to my colleagues everything in Dodd-Frank has worked exactly the way I think the authors intended at the time. None of this has been accidental. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentlelady from New York. Ms. Velazquez is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shelton, whenever Republicans talk about the need to structurally reform the CFPB to make it more accountable, I always like to remind people of where we have come from. The American consumers lost $19.2 trillion in wealth, $3.4 trillion in retirement money. So can you describe the factors that led to the 2008 financial crisis and why it was so important to create the strong consumer watchdog in the first place? Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, for that question. The issues and challenges that we had at that time were we had so many Americans, and disproportionately racial and ethnic minority Americans, women-owned households, the elderly, that were actually being abused by many of the financial services institutions because of a lack of protection and regulation. Many of them were approached by not only the lending institution themselves but, in many cases, actually by brokers that actually came forward offering them great deals to address other challenges happening at that time. That was also a time in which fuel costs were surging. And as such, we had a number of Americans that were on fixed incomes that had paid off their mortgages who were approached by brokers telling them that they could refinance their homes to put in everything from systems to provide more insulation, windows, new heating systems, and the like. I sat next to a woman at this very table whose husband had worked hard his entire life for a rather large tire company in Ohio. He had retired with a pension and with other retirement funds and Social Security. He passed away. Fuel prices began to go up. She needed to do something about the home in which she lived in, that she owned. What they brought her was a mortgage that started out at about $25,000 as a loan. But before things were over, it had compounded to over $100,000 in something we call an exploding ARM. Let me just say the sadness of those problems went far beyond her just losing her home. The day that the marshals came to take her home--her furniture out on the side of the street. One of the other things her husband left behind was an old shotgun. Sadly, she used that shotgun on herself as well. That was simply one indication of how extraordinary those circumstances were and how clear it was to us that the protections that everyday American consumers need in the financial services arena are not there. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Shelton. There is so much more that needs to be done. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Shelton, when OMB Director Mulvaney was here in April, I questioned him on his dual role as head of OMB and the CFPB. During our exchange, he did nothing to reduce my concern that his dual roles present a conflict of interest and potentially undermines the independence of the Bureau. Do you share my concerns? Mr. Shelton. Absolutely. I know what the job is like at the CFPB. I have had an opportunity to spend much time with Rich Cordray, our former Director. We have been in and out of that office addressing the many issues of the communities that the NAACP serves. It is very clear to me: If one person can handle that job well, it is extraordinary. But suggesting a man can run two major U.S. agencies at the same time is rather concerning. Ms. Velazquez. And we all know that Mulvaney's mission is to basically deconstruct the CFPB. They cannot eliminate it. They will gut it. Mr. Shelton. Exactly. Ms. Velazquez. And today's announcement is a clear example of that. So according to--well, yes, we heard, and I echo the concerns expressed by Mr. Scott regarding the announcement of Mr. Mulvaney today. Mr. Day, in your testimony, you talk about the Bureau needing to provide more regulatory guidance in the form of examples of what will be permissible and impermissible business practices. Could you explain a situation in which more examples from the Bureau will be helpful? Mr. Day. Thank you for the question. Yes, the example again concerning TRID when we were involved with, we had--and I would say that the department was very forthcoming with assisting the--giving information. But having clarity as far as the examples, we have an industry that wants to do the right thing. But, it is like getting a speed limit guidance to understand where directions should you follow or a street map. If we had more information on this is how the disclosure should read on a more complicated situation, be it a construction loan, be it a VA loan, an FHA loan, it would be helpful for our members to then have that and to be able to share that information with the consumers. So that is all we are really looking for is to have better information that we can best serve the consumer as far as the information we share. Ms. Velazquez. So that is not an argument to say that the CFPB should be restructured in a way that will be unable to provide the protections to consumers. Mr. Day. Certainly we support the department and what--and the Bureau in what they have done relative to consumers, because we share that concern. And so we are looking forward to just having that clear guidance which will be necessary for our operations. Ms. Velazquez. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady yields back. With that, we go to Mr. Ross. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chairman. And I thank the panel for being here. All of us here have experienced the adage that elections have consequences, and to the victor goes the spoils, and usually at the detriment of the electorate. And I think this example that we have talked about today with a single Director of CFPB is a shining example of that; as has been explained by my colleague Mr. Scott so well, that it has been not only the desire of this committee but the sense of this House that the CFPB be a commission, that no one person, especially with no accountability to Congress or anyone else, should be in this position, not only for purposes of a denial of due process but also for protection of the consumers. And so my concern has been, and why I filed H.R. 5266, which creates a commission, a five-member commission, is that we need to have continuity and stability in the decisionmaking process and the rule-promulgation process of the CFPB. As members of this panel have discussed today, there is a sense of uncertainty because of whomever is in power will appoint whomever they want to do whatever is necessary to implement their desires, and then the next Administration who is contrary to that will appoint something just differently. And as a result, we have seen an investment in capital that would otherwise be used to help the commerce of this country to now be tied up in the regulatory compliance arena. And so my first question to Mr. Hunt, this pendulum swing, what effect does it have on consumers and small businesses from a banking perspective? Mr. Hunt. Sure. It has tremendous effect on everything they do, every financial product, every loan they make. What are new rules? What are the new regulations every single time? I actually am going to agree with Mr. Shelton here for a second. He said it is hard for one man to run the agency. One person. He is correct. You can't have one person with all this power under them to run this agency, this Bureau. So we concur it should be a five-person commission from day one. It is not just the rules but examination mentality, enforcement mentality. One person gets to get up out of bed every day with all that power. You are having a great debate right now. There is no debate at the Bureau about-- Mr. Ross. And can you estimate how much capital is tied up in trying to just being able to anticipate the uncertainty of who may be next Director of CFPB without any continuity? Mr. Hunt. Sure. S&P had an estimate that came out of about $30 billion in the United States that is tied up in complying with all the different rules and regulations. Mr. Ross. That could be used to oil the wheels of commerce and allow for innovators to start news businesses and expand and employ more people and grow this economy. Now, my concern about one person. Look, I know my limitations, and I think everybody knows, to some degree, their limitations. And it is why we rely on others to assist us in performing our obligations. And so a commission might have certain expertise in one area different from another commissioner, different from another commissioner that would allow even a safety net so that those commissioners can oversee that what one may have missed in their expertise would be found in their expertise. So my concern is, would not there be a greater sense of accountability and maybe even a better sense of innovation for consumer protections if you have a commission of five as opposed to a person of one? Mr. Shelton-- Mr. Shelton. Oh, I would be delighted. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to respond to that. Our biggest concern is the lack of flexibility. Having five people trying to make decisions as we play a game of whack-a- mole that we-- Mr. Ross. But we do that in the SEC. Mr. Shelton. May I finish? Mr. Ross. We do it in FSOC. We do it in all types of-- Mr. Shelton. And we also have the President-- Mr. Ross. We do it with the Supreme Court. Mr. Shelton. We have an Attorney General that runs an incredible agency. We have many single people that run Government agencies throughout this country that do an excellent job. A commission under these circumstances, in our opinion, would create the same kind of problems we had before. Mr. Ross. But it would not abridge the rights of the individuals and consumers. Mr. Shelton. --lending products that pop up looking just like the last lending product with a different name and expect the commission to respond as flexibly as it needs to be, as quickly to respond to these kinds of problems is exactly the situation we found ourselves in prior to the 2008 economic downturn. Mr. Ross. I appreciate that, Mr. Shelton. Mr. Hunt, do you want to respond? Mr. Hunt. I do. The Attorney General was appointed by the President, can be fired by the President, fired at will. So that is not an independent agency. Mr. Ross. And there's congressional oversight there too-- Mr. Hunt. Yes. The CFTC, the NCUA. Remember, the NCUA is a commission of three. Just three. So they can operate with three. We are looking for five. Maybe we go down to three. I don't know. But also the FDIC, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), even the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a commission the Bureau was modeled after, a commission. Mr. Ross. Correct. I see my time is up. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. With that, we go to the gentleman from New York. Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you, each and every one of you, for your testimony. And I think that, just for the record, what I want to do is to make sure--I will start with Mr. Day and just go down the line. Do you agree that there is a need for the CFPB? Mr. Day. I do. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Hunt? Mr. Hunt. We do indeed. Mr. Meeks. Ms. Prochaska? Ms. Prochaska. We do. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Shelton? Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Whitaker? Mr. Whitaker. Yes. It doesn't apply to my community banks, but I do think we have a need for it in the country, yes. Mr. Meeks. Right. Because what happened after-- Mr. Whitaker. Just because of my size. Just because of my asset size. Someday maybe. Mr. Meeks. And I think I want to subscribe to some of the things that Mr. Scott said and the reason why we worked hard and created the CFPB, because there was a need. We didn't have one, and we looked at it. And we saw that there were, in fact, individuals who could not deal with and comprehend a lot of the complicated issues that come to consumers. Because we would agree that financial services, and at times, I know even here in Washington, we have members on the committee who have not been in the business of financial services; they don't understand. So we need somebody at least that can give people advice on what is or is not predatory because I think we would also agree that certain individuals, individuals--and this is whether you are Democratic or Republican or not, you don't understand a product, and you can be taken advantage of. You can be gouged. And I think Mr. Shelton indicated that it seemed to be particularly prevalent with people of color where they were gouged. And I think that was clear when we talked about the financial crisis that we had and the mortgages. It was clear that a lot of the high mortgages were steered toward people of color when people had equal credit ratings. So, if we can agree, and I think we can all agree, in the history of our country, there has been redlining and things of that nature. Will everybody agree with that? So there have been some bad actions that have taken place that I don't think that anybody that has a reputable bank or credit union or financial institution, you want to get rid of the bad guys so that you can continue to do your business. I think the chamber would be in accord with that. Ms. Prochaska. Absolutely. Mr. Meeks. Is that correct? Ms. Prochaska. Absolutely. Mr. Meeks. And I know here the argument that we are having now, whether or not we are going to--whether it is a single person or a commission, I think Mr. Scott was right in that, when it initially left the House--I worked on it--we did talk about a commission at the time so that we did not get into the kinds of headaches and the problems that we are having now so that it swings--the pendulum swings one way or the other so drastically as the result of who is in power, because for me the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to protect the American citizen, and it shouldn't be part of the politics. But it is difficult. And then I think that the problem that we have and how we are in this now, when we look at--well, Mr. Hunt, I think you just said in your testimony, we just spent a lot of money complying with this new Government agency, complying with the rules. The last thing we want to do is spend the same amount of money going 180 degrees in the opposite direction, which I think gives everybody a problem, because what you want to do is--really is--we may have some arguments whether or not a rule is too stringent or too loose, et cetera. But I think that it will benefit everyone if you just know what the rule is so that you can comply by the rule. And, so those arguments are going to go back and forth. But if we know what the rule is, then I think that makes it easier for everybody. And it is easier to give the consumer the advice because we know what those rules are. So we got to set those rules. And I think that is what we are trying to do other than--because what we see now, rules were set. Whether you like commission, whether you not, or an individual person, rules had been set. That is what Mr. Hunt had said. And to apply by those rules, you spent a lot of money. And now we want to change the rules. Mr. Hunt. Please don't mistake what I meant by that. There are some rules that need to be turned 180 degrees but not every 4 years by a new Administration. Mr. Meeks. Right. But there is going to be some debates on that already. You look at sports. There are the rules. When you play the games, some people say that shouldn't be the rule. They want to change the rules. But the game--the rules are the rules, and you got to abide by the rules, right? That is what this thing is all about. And I think that what Mr. Shelton was talking about was that we have some rules; let's abide by the rules because if you get rid of the rules, guess who gets hurt? What did you say it was? The 330 million Americans that are dependent upon the CFPB. If we don't abide by rules that have certain rules, 330 million American citizens, American consumers, are the ones that will get hurt. That is who I think that we should all be here to protect. They are our constituents. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Pittenger. He is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to each of you for your willingness to come and offer your advice. I would like to say that my concerns related to the CFPB in its inception, that they have essentially pushed the envelope on the enforcement of regulatory matters, which, in many cases, has done more harm than good, in any opinion. Director Mulvaney, I believe, has done a very good job in addressing many of these matters, but there is a lot of work left to be done. In that light, Mr. Hunt, I would like to ask you what can be done at this time by regulators to encourage banks to offer short-term credit to our constituents? Mr. Hunt. Go back and look at the small dollar rule offered by the Bureau. First off, as Ms. Larson mentioned earlier, A, the OCC has removed its guidance. That is terrific. I am hoping, under Ms. McWilliams, the FDIC will do the same thing. We had six of our banking institutions offering short-term liquidity needs. Once our Federal Government did that through the OCC and FDIC, all six exited that business. Now, the OCC is trying to get our banks back in because we have a much better product than payday lending trying to help people meet their financial emergency needs. The CFPB needs to craft a rule that does not require banks to underwrite a $500 loan as they would a $500,000 mortgage. That is absurd to do that. Allow us the flexibility to work with our customers. The deposit advance product, sir, was one of the most favorably rated products we had at the bank. Once it was removed from the bank, guess what happened? Complaints at the CFPB rose, and the CFPB then got on us for having more complaints. It was a circular firing squad. So we need to be in this arena. We need to do so very quickly. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you. Mr. Day, I am curious about something that you highlighted in your testimony about the Bureau's third-party service provider bulletin. You mentioned that some small businesses were pushed to exit the market because of confusion among the lenders whether they met the Bureau's service provider requirements. What exactly were lenders concerned about which led them to end these business relationships? Mr. Day. Thank you for the question. And, actually, that was part of the confusion in our request for improving on as far as guidance because the lenders were given just a three-page edict of ``you have to be concerned'' but not a lot of guidance of, what should they be concerned about? So the natural recourse of that is to be very restrictive. And in doing that, one, as I mentioned earlier, it eliminated consumer choice as to being able to select a provider for title insurance because they were no longer on an approved lenders list. It also made it difficult for those who were lenders who came up with creating standards to the same degree for an entity that was doing 2,000 loans a month for someone who does two or three loans. And we think there is an appropriateness for scalability to be able to say this is a provider that I have a notice and comfort with that I should be able to allow that provider to service and not have to put them under the same constraints and restrictions and all of the expense to meet the guidelines, many of them either merged out or just closed their businesses because they could no longer engage in that expense. Mr. Pittenger. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Hunt, I am concerned about the effects of section 1071, which requires HMDA-like reporting for business loans, and what that will have on the small business community and the availability of capital. What are your thoughts on the timing of future rulemaking mandate about section 1071? And in your view, is it even possible to construct a rule that will not impede business lending and stifle economic growth? Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. We are very concerned about this rule that may be coming down from the Bureau within, I don't know, the next 4 to 5 years. Who knows. I think this is a tough one. The Bureau has been working on developing some type of rule for the last 6 years under Director Cordray, and they could not reach a favorable conclusion as well. A small business loan is completely night-and-day different than a mortgage loan. A mortgage loan is actually quite simple. But a small business loan is very complex determining the definition of a small business, how many people own the small business, and the different types of loans as well. We will continue working with the Bureau. But I think, sir, at the end of the day, this is going to be tricky. What I don't want to see happen is it to become so complex and erroneous that our banks exit the small business area. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you. One last quick question. I would just like to know, do enforcement actions provide companies with enough information to know how to operate within the law? How do these companies respond to an enforcement action against another company in your industry? Mr. Day. Mr. Day. Yes. I am sorry. Thank you. No. Unfortunately, a lot of these enforcement actions are negotiated resolutions. They are also fact-specific. So although they may have reached a result, it is hard to glean guidance from that to really understand that, how do I conduct my business so as to not be subject to a future enforcement action? Mr. Pittenger. Thank you. My time is expired. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Green is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member as well. I welcome the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that Mr. Mulvaney has indicated that he would like to ensure that the Director answers to the President in the exercise of executive authority, the Director being the Director of the CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law currently, as codified, allows the President to remove the Director of the CFPB for cause. For cause. And I must tell you that I am adamantly opposed to the President who would ban the LGBTQ from the military with a tweet. The same President who would ban Muslims from this country. The same President who refers to professional athletes as SOBs, meaning their mothers are dogs. The same President who found that there was some very fine people among those at Charlottesville who were saying Jews will not replace us, blood and soil. One can only imagine if one of them happens to be a banker how he would treat a loan from a person of African ancestry or a Jewish person. The same President who says that countries in Africa refers to some of them as s-hole countries. The same President who would fire the current AG, but for his belief that it would impact his future; has already fired one AG. I am adamantly opposed to this President having the ability to fire the Director of the CFPB at will. This President has already demonstrated that he is including, integrating, if you will, his bigotry into policy. This President, if he had complete authority over the CFPB, given the way he is treating the Justice Department, one can only imagine what he would require of the CFPB. I am adamantly, absolutely, totally, and completely opposed to this President having that kind of authority to interfere with the independence of the CFPB. Now, let's talk about discrimination. Everybody says: I am opposed to discrimination. I don't think anybody ought to be discriminated against. As a matter of fact, let's do this quickly, if you think that people should be discriminated against in lending, raise your hand, please. Let the record reflect that no one has raised their hand. Now the question becomes, do you believe that discrimination in lending exists? If you believe that it exists, raise your hand, please. Only one person on the panel--let the record reflect that of the persons on this panel, but one person has raised his or her hand indicating a belief that discrimination exists in banking. For fear that someone may have misunderstood my question, allow me to ask it again politely. Sirs and ma'am, do you believe that discrimination exists in lending in banking institutions? If you do, would you kindly raise your hand. Mr. Hunt. I don't think it is a yes-or-no question. Mr. Green. Again, there is only one hand. And we have one person who believes that it is not a yes-or-no question as to whether or not discrimination exists in lending in this country today as I speak. The empirical evidence shows it. Testing has revealed it. It exists, and we know it. And what we do is deny the existence so that we don't have to do anything about it. And for prominent persons such as yourselves to, by and through your testimony, indicate that you don't believe that invidious discrimination exists in banking--maybe I didn't use ``invidious.'' Permit me to ask again. Do you believe that invidious, harmful--that is what ``invidious'' means--harmful discrimination exists in lending in the United States of America today? If you do, raise your hand. Let the record show that Mr. Shelton is the only person who has raised his hand. Ms. Prochaska. I will second Mr. Hunt. I don't think it is a yes-or-no question. Mr. Green. You don't think it is a yes-or-no answer. We have come a long way. But, my friends, we have a long way to go because you control what happens. And if you control what happens, you control what happens, and you sincerely believe that there is no discrimination in lending, we have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. I will yield back the balance of my time because there is not enough time to go into the behavior that has manifested itself today in this testimony. It is a sad day for this House. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since my colleague did not offer the opportunity for Mr. Hunt to offer an explanation and testimony, I will provide that to him right now. Mr. Hunt. Thank you very much for that opportunity to respond. I will tell you, our banks move Heaven and Earth to make sure there is no discrimination, period. We do not support it. Obviously, we work with the regulators all the time through examinations, through the ECOA, through the Fair Housing Act. On and on again, we do not--we totally--condone any type of discrimination at our banks. As I mentioned earlier, I hope the only profile we look at is the credit profile, that and that alone. Mr. Barr. Mr. Whitaker, again, welcome to the committee. And as a constituent, I am honored to have you here in front of us. And as I said in my introduction of you, I have had the privilege of meeting your father. I had the privilege of meeting your late grandfather. And they were pillars of our community. And as I said, we are so grateful for the philanthropy, not just the business and banking services that you provided to the consumers of central and eastern Kentucky all these many years, protecting consumers by offering them opportunities of credit and giving them the American Dream, but also, sir, for the charitable work that you and so many in your industry offer to your communities. The YMCA that you built in Hamburg and Lexington, the Whitaker Bankshot, the scholarships that your institution has provided for years and years and years. So not just protecting consumers but lifting people up. Lifting people up. Thank you to you and your industry for helping people. That is the business you are in. And I know you have learned humility from your dad and your grandfather. I know that about your family. But I want you to just put that humility aside for a minute. And I want to just confirm what I read in your written testimony was that, when your grandfather started that bank in 1978, he started it with about $59 million in assets. Is that about right? Mr. Whitaker. That is correct. Mr. Barr. And today your bank has grown to $1.7 billion in assets. Is that correct? Mr. Whitaker. That is correct. Mr. Barr. So, by my reading, in over about 40 years, you have grown about 30 times. Is that about right? Mr. Whitaker. That is correct. Mr. Barr. You are still a relatively small institution relative to the banking sector. You are a community bank still. But let me just ask you this, asking you to set that instinctual humility aside. How did you grow? How did your bank grow? Mr. Whitaker. We grew primarily through acquisition and product development and through integrity and our reputation of treating people fairly and honestly. Mr. Barr. Yes. And so you picked up customers because you offer good service, because you offered affordable products, because you provided folks with opportunity that they didn't have before. Let me ask you this: What would happen if one of your competitors didn't do that? What would happen if one of your competitors mistreated or discriminated against a customer? What would happen then? Mr. Whitaker. To your question, Congressman, that is why I always say that community banks like mine, we function without regulation because our reputation is our regulation. And if I had a competitor that treated people unfairly, my company would grow. Mr. Barr. And so you grew by offering good services, by serving your customers well, and by not--and by performing with integrity. Let me ask you this: Does it help or hurt consumers when banks consolidate? When there are fewer community banks, does that help or hurt customers? Mr. Whitaker. That hurts our customers because it makes credit less accessible, especially in our rural communities where, if you close down the only bank in town, it is very challenging for them to obtain the credit they need to help recover that economic condition in those communities. Mr. Barr. And so that just counsels in favor of exactly what we are saying. Reform the CFPB, give you all more flexibility, encourage greater competition and choice, and guess what the result is? Better consumer protection. Mr. Whitaker, as you know, and you pointed out, the Bureau is not subject to the congressional appropriations process. And you have supported putting it on the congressional appropriations process. I introduced a bill, H.R. 2553, the Taking Account of Bureaucrats' Spending Act, which would subject the Bureau to the congressional appropriations process. Let me quickly go back to Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt, you testified that the current Bureau receives direct funding from the Federal Reserve at the request of the Director capped at 12 percent of the Federal Reserve's operating expenses. And you said, as long as the budget request falls below this cap, the budget request cannot be denied. Mr. Hunt, does that mean that Acting Director Mulvaney has the legal discretion to make a budget request well below its budget today? Mr. Hunt. He can, and he has. Mr. Barr. And so I would like to finish with Mr. Shelton. Mr. Shelton, would you or the NAACP have a grievance if Acting Director Mulvaney did what is in his legal authority to do, which is request a much lower budget? Mr. Shelton. I would say that we would want to make sure that the budget that is being requested is one that would actually fulfill the task and needs of the-- Mr. Barr. And so Mr. Shelton-- Mr. Shelton. --in the communities we serve. Mr. Barr. --this is the whole point. Mr. Shelton. --demonstration-- Mr. Barr. Why wouldn't you want Congress to have the authority to appropriate? You have no--and your organization has no input into the process. If you have a grievance, we want your grievance to be recognized by your elected Representatives in Congress. My time has expired, and I yield back. Mr. Shelton. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to the question he left on the table with the time that is not left for him at this point. We had no problems whatsoever with the previous CFPB Director in getting our points, our concerns, and the issues of our communities heard by that very important agency. And as a result, we were able to get much done to prevent the kinds of discrimination that led to the economic downturn and the discriminatory impact in the African American community and-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. We are going to allow a little bit longer to go here because we are running out of folks here, and we do have some time this afternoon. So, Mr. Barr, if you would like another minute or two, I see-- Mr. Shelton. Well, we could go for a drink. Mr. Barr. Mr. Shelton-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. OK. Mr. Barr, you are recognized to continue. Mr. Barr. Very quickly, Mr. Shelton. So I recognize we have a difference of opinion on some of these things. But I do think we have an agreement here. And the agreement is that you would have--the point is you would have a grievance with Acting Director Mulvaney. And you have expressed some of those grievances today. And my only point is this. Let's go back to the Founding Fathers, the two of us together, and look at what James Madison said. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 58 that the power of the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure. And so the point is this: I want you, as a citizen of the United States, to be able to hold this Congress accountable for this grievance that you have. Under the current law, you cannot do that because the statute says you have no say in your Government. And I yield back. Mr. Clay. Would the gentleman yield before he yields his time? Mr. Barr, could I engage you just-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. You have 1 minute left, guys. Mr. Clay. Thank you. Just to bring your attention. You talk about the power of the purse string. You talk about antidiscrimination measures. When you look at how much wealth was stripped from the minority communities during the Great Recession--I am from Missouri. And in Missouri, we have a saying: You have to show us. Anybody on this panel that would not answer Mr. Green's question, all I ask for is the data to show me that you are being fair, that you are being fair with your customer, that you actually can show me by ZIP Code, not by credit score, by ZIP Code, that you are lending into these ZIP Codes. And not tell me about credit scores. A lot of that is discretionary. And you know it, Mr. Hunt. But that is the point I raise to Mr. Barr. Look, the numbers tell it all. I see our time has expired. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to Mr. Tipton. He is recognized for the next 5 minutes. He is from Colorado. You may begin. Mr. Tipton. I thank the panel, and I appreciate you taking the time to be able to be here. Interesting listening to the conversation because I think there is a lot of common ground. Nobody is antiregulation. We just want to make sure that we have got sensible regulation that people can actually understand. I would like to actually go back. Mr. Hunt, if you speak to this just a little bit. My colleague Mr. Ross brought up the ultimate impact ultimately on consumers of overregulation--or regulation that can't really be understood and some of the costs associated with that. What are the real impacts ultimately on the ultimate consumer? Mr. Hunt. I think it is consumer choice, consumer financial product choices. There are only so many products that we will be able to offer to our consumer. So, when they need--short- term liquidity needs or a mortgage, the rules set forth by the Bureau may be too draconian for us to stay in that business, so they have less choices to do it. Mr. Tipton. In some of the cases where you do stay, it is marginal. Does it increase the cost for the consumer? Mr. Hunt. Of course, it does. In Economics 101, if you drive the cost up in one, somebody has to feel the cost, whether it is higher interest rates or fees or whatnot. Mr. Tipton. So not having clarity and regulations, not understanding what the field is actually is hurting access to capital for the very people that you would like to be able to help. Mr. Hunt. Sir, we can handle bad news. What we don't like to talk about is uncertainty. Just tell us the clear rules of the road, and we can adjust. Mr. Tipton. Great. Now, when we go back, and we are looking at TRID right now, Mr. Day, you had spoken to this a little bit in your testimony. And when I looked at your written testimony, you noted that webinars were held to try and be able to give some clarity to the proposed rule that was coming out, but the Bureau staff reading the disclaimer stated this presentation does not represent legal interpretation, guidance, or advice from the Bureau. Did you say, why are we here? Mr. Day. Thank you for the point. It was exactly the--why we support the GUIDE Act in saying that it is very important to have guidance, but it needs to be guidance we can rely upon. We can't just have a conversation and then have our members go forward and then have a contrary result come back because, well, that really wasn't what we meant. And there have been a few examples where we have had these kinds of discussions with the Bureau, and they would go so far but then not continue it. And I think--I share with Mr. Hunt, we are an industry that is very willing to take guidance and to understand what the rules are that we need to follow. We just need that level of certainty which the GUIDE Act would provide to us in being able to not only have the guidance but be able to rely upon it. Mr. Tipton. Great. And I think that led, actually, to my question. You have spoken to that, the importance of being able to have actual clarity for you. And, Mr. Hunt, would you maybe like to be able speak to the importance of what the GUIDE Act, Mr. Duffy's bill, can actually achieve? Mr. Hunt. Yes. I think the overarching theme of the GUIDE Act, obviously, is to make sure that we know the rules of the road. It is one thing to issue a rule, but a rule could be 800 pages long. We want to know what the Bureau was thinking at all times. I love the debate we are having today. We don't have that at the Bureau today. I don't think there is anything wrong with a five-person commission at 2 p.m. on a Wednesday saying why they brought out this rule; here is exactly what we are thinking; and here is why we are thinking, to bring more clarity to it. Right now, all the person has to do is get up and issue a press release, and it is over. Ms. Prochaska. Mr. Tipton, could I add to that really quickly? Mr. Tipton. You bet. Ms. Prochaska. I just wanted to tie something back to Mr. Meeks' point earlier about sports and how there are certain rules and regulations. What the Bureau has been doing for the past 6 years, 7 years now, is calling a strike after the fact and not delineating what the actual strike box is and then moving the goalpost. So I am mixing metaphors now. But you know what I mean. There hasn't been clear delineation. Chairman Luetkemeyer. They are all sports, so you are OK. Ms. Prochaska. Yes. Exactly, right? So there haven't been clear delineations, and that is exactly our point. If there were clear regs that institutions could follow and clear guidance on how to actually implement them, we would think that is wonderful, and at least we will know how to meet that. The problem is when you do enforcement actions after the fact, the disparate impact, the auto cases are a perfect example. Not exactly knowing what the rules of the road are and then, on the aftermath, getting slapped on the wrist because of it. Mr. Tipton. Well, I know my colleague Mr. Williams will be more than happy to be able to cover some of the auto industry rules and regulations as well. Ms. Prochaska. Happy to chat any time. Mr. Tipton. He is a humble, small businessman. But I do appreciate you all taking time to be able to be here, and I do appreciate that concept of--I come from the small business world. And we had a regular review process in business and a very simple philosophy that if it isn't working, fix it. If you can't, stop doing it. Not a bad policy. And I think we are making some good moves and do applaud the efforts by Mr. Duffy with the GUIDE Act. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. And, with that, the gentleman from Texas is also recognized now for 5 minutes. Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding today's hearing. While the regulatory relief package recently signed into law by President Trump is a major win for all America, work remains particularly concerning to CFPB reform. For too long, the CFPB has undertaken a mission to impose big Government, one-size-fits- all policies with far-reaching implications for businesses and consumers. While I am glad Acting Director Mulvaney has begun to take steps to rein in this unaccountable Bureau, the burden falls on Congress to ensure that lasting reform occurs. Ms. Prochaska, I gather you are a baseball fan. You mentioned it. Ms. Prochaska. I sure am. I played softball for 10 years. Mr. Williams. First question. Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame? Ms. Prochaska. I am a Padres fan. Mr. Williams. Let me get to more matters at hand. Acting Director Mulvaney recently appeared before this committee and offered his perspectives on how to best reform the CFPB. Among these reforms, Acting Director Mulvaney identified the CFPB through congressional appropriations as a way to successfully subject the CFPB to congressional oversight. So my question to you: Do you feel that subjecting the Bureau to true congressional oversight would impede the Bureau's ability to successfully carry out statutory consumer protection obligations? Ms. Prochaska. Absolutely not. I think that Mr. Barr made a very good point earlier. Earlier this year, Mr. Mulvaney actually did request zero dollars from the Fed. He indicated that, because he already had the money allocated in his budget, he was able to keep operations going. Theoretically, under law, he doesn't have to do that. He could ask for zero yet again and yet again, and that can go on for 5 years. So, although he is going to be asking for more money in the future, the fact that we don't have congressional oversight-- and I will reference again a poll that we conducted--66 percent of Americans said that actual checks and balances of appropriations are what we need to have over our Governmental agencies. Most people, when I go back home to California, don't understand what is going on in the regulatory State, and that is something that we need to have some purview over. Mr. Williams. Thank you. Mr. Hunt, one of the most concerning past actions of CFPB was their process for creating and implementing rulemakings. Past rulemakings have lacked robust industry input, adherence to formal rulemaking processes, and a flexible implementation process following the issuance of a final rule. So, without clear, predictable regulations, the Bureau cannot issue proper guidance to ensure compliance across countless industries. The CFPB's practice of issuing rules and worrying about implementation later has caused damaging effects for the consumer and businesses alike. So how did the CFPB fall short in previous rulemakings? And what must be done to prevent the shortcomings in the future? Mr. Hunt. Yes. If I could point to one specific, I think it would be the TILA-RESPA implementation. We were not opposed to the rule. We understood the rule. But they basically want us to implement it overnight. And they did not understand what takes place in the banking industry. I would have to guess at the Bureau probably less than 10 percent of their 1,600 employees have real-world banking experience. Now, I am not saying the Bureau should be 90 percent. They wanted to create a different type of bureau than other regulators, and they have accomplished that. But I do believe you need to have real-world experience both from the consumer protection side and on the banking side within the Bureau itself. Mr. Williams. OK. Thank you. Mr. Whitaker, as a small business owner myself for over 47 years, I know all too well that banks like yours are the backbone of Main Street America and continue to struggle under the weight of an overly burdensome regulatory environment. One of the main ways that we can fix this is through reforms offered in my bill, the Community Financial Institution Exemption Act, that would strengthen already existing language within Dodd-Frank by exempting credit unions and community banks under $50 billion in consolidated assets from CFPB's rulemakings unless the Bureau and other Federal regulators have cause to include them. So would this kind of reform ease the regulatory burden at institutions like yours? Mr. Whitaker. It absolutely would. I will say that with my current regulators, we have a great working relationship. And I would like to see that continued, and that bill would certainly help accomplish that. Mr. Williams. Thank you. Mr. Day, thank you for being here on behalf of the land title professionals, many of whom I represent back home in Texas. And these small businesses are critical to communities across the Nation. And the lack of clarity from the CFPB has left them with too many unanswered questions. So, briefly, do you feel that enforcement actions of the CFPB provide companies with enough information to know how to operate within the law? And how do companies respond to an enforcement action against another company in your industry? Mr. Day. Thank you for the question. No, unfortunately, it is difficult to glean from the enforcement actions how they would like to proceed, and so that is why our focus on the--getting improved guidance. And, in fact, you could have an improving factor as far as the consumers in having better guidance because we get the rules of the road. Our small businesses can follow what are the appropriate actions, and then the CFPB would have less enforcement actions because it would not be necessary. The guidelines would be clear, and we could follow it, and we can move forward and protect the consumer. Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back my time. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to Mr. Kustoff. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank all the witnesses for appearing this afternoon. Ms. Prochaska, the years before the Bureau was established, prudential regulators collected and helped to resolve complaints but refrained from publishing comments as many of them contained unsubstantiated and false claims. With the enactment of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau was mandated to collect complaints. Despite this--I don't think anywhere in the statute does it even allude to making these comments public, public comments. The Bureau did so regardless of whether there was a statutory mandate. In fact, there wasn't. And the fact that many times, sometimes the complaints, frankly, they are unverified. They provide questionable--in my opinion, questionable utility to consumers and certainly could compromise consumer privacy. With all that, do you think it is appropriate to publish these comments or these complaints even though they could be a serious threat to consumer privacy and there could be a likelihood of misinterpretation? Your response. Ms. Prochaska. Congressman Kustoff, thank you for that very important question. I can't tell you how many comment letters I have written to the Bureau about this exact topic. So very nice to speak about it. Nowhere in the statute does it say that it needs to be public. And as you mentioned, the OCC, the Fed, the FTC, the FCC, all of the alphabet soup, keep those complaints private for the exact reasons that you just mentioned, one being privacy and, two, that it is unverified. Another issue is that it is not normalized. It is no surprise that the four largest banks generally get the majority of the complaints because they have the largest consumer base. A couple years ago, the CFPB was producing monthly reports that were saying the 10 most complained about companies, while in reality, of course, it is the 10 largest companies, and it was the same people every month. I don't really think that is going to be valuable information for consumers. Another point I would like to make as well is in the CFPB's annual reports on complaints, 75 percent are closed with explanation. So that could be inquiries. So that means that there was theoretically nothing wrong that the institution did. I have spent hours reading that complaint portal. I am probably the only person who does. And, oftentimes there are complaints about bank hours or that--there are just so many different things that it wasn't an actual issue that arose with the bank. So I think in the interest of keeping consumer information private, we should have the Bureau just for market monitoring purposes at the agency for the time being. Mr. Kustoff. I do appreciate the response. Earlier, I introduced legislation, and the title of it is Protecting Consumers from Frivolous Claims Act. And it seeks to prevent the CFPB from making public these consumer complaints. Do you have--and I don't know if you are familiar with the proposed bill. Do you have any opinion about this bill and whether it would, in fact, lead to the prevention of those complaints? Ms. Prochaska. I am not familiar with the exact text. But as you summarized it, it seems like something we would be definitely supportive of. I think it has been a large concern of industry that it is actually misleading customers by thinking that, if you get a complaint, which it may actually be an inquiry that you are a bad institution when, in reality, that is definitely not the case. Mr. Kustoff. Thank you very much. Mr. Day, again, I appreciate you being here as well. I have listened to all of your comments, your statements. And most of you, if not all of you, talked about the complexity of having a single inspector general and multiple inspector generals. The Bureau and the Federal Reserve, of course, share an inspector general. He or she is tasked with conducting the audits and investigations relating to the program and the operations of each of the agencies. Your opinion, given the size, the scope, the complexity of the Bureau and the Federal Reserve, do you think--is it hard for a single inspector general to have the bandwidth, if you will, to identify problems within both agencies? Your response. Mr. Day. Thank you for the question. I certainly support Acting Director Mulvaney's request that there be an independent inspector general for the department. It is a Bureau that is quite diverse with a lot of activities and feel it would be very appropriate to have an independent inspector general in supporting that effort. Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Mr. Day. And I have got 2 seconds. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired at this moment. We thank him for that. Ms. Tenney is now recognized, the gentlelady from New York, for 5 minutes. Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And thank you so much to all of you for being witnesses here today. It has been a little bit more entertaining than most Financial Services Committee meetings. We have gotten into some sporting events, and now we are going to talk a little bit about constitutional issues, which I think is one of the most important issues in dealing with the new bureau which has a new name, but I will still refer to it as CFPB for simplification. And I am just going to follow a little bit on what my colleague, Mr. Barr from Kentucky, said. And I know I discussed this with Mr. Mulvaney when he was here, and this is why I think the constitutional issue is really important. And I like to look at another section of James Madison's Federalist Papers, which is Federalist No. 10 that states, ``Enlightened Statesmen will not always be at the helm.'' And that is the very reason we need to have checks and balances like we do with every other agency and why we have checks and balances in our Government. If we do have an unenlightened person, and God forbid we ever have that happen, never happened in the history of the republic, but we have an opportunity to vote that person out or we have an opportunity to deal with a funding issue. And so I really appreciate your comments. I come from a small business community and also an owner of a small business, so I know how crushing regulatory burdens can really hurt a small business and make it unfair for us to compete against larger entities, and also how unfair it is when often our competitors who are larger are getting subsidies from Government, which makes it even harder. But I wanted to ask Mr. Day, because I was really compelled by some of the testimony you had. First of all, I am a bank attorney. I used to represent a number of small business. I was examining counsel until January 3, 2017, for a small title insurance agency in New York State, which, is an attorney State versus a title State, so we are still trying to have dominion over title insurance as lawyers in New York. But some of the issues that I am just shocked to find out how big the tentacles are with the Bureau in being able to regulate an industry, such as title insurance, where so many of your small businesses are really trying to--they are exceedingly careful in trying to make sure their loans are-- they are the ones insuring the actual title, which is really important in New York, our property rights are important. So can you tell me just a couple of things or maybe an example of how the rules have made it difficult for your industry to function? And you can choose a title or attorney State, whichever you-- Mr. Day. Well, we will stay with New York and certainly the practices there. Thank you for the question and the opportunity. I believe where the difficulty is with the level of uncertainty is that as businesses look to try to align themselves with other professionals. Is this an appropriate structure? Is this a new venture that will be supportive of regulators? When business has looked to get into a new area, how much capital do they have to invest to make sure they are in full compliance? Can there be a scalability as I startup or do I have to be, as you mention, competing with the big boys and have to come in and have a SOC 2 audit and be at that level to just be able to be approved by a lender? So, yes, in our industry, the title end does not fall into it, but the settlement practices do. And so with the confusion with our lender partners, it then trickles down to confusion as to our title entities who are just trying to proceed with their settlements and not truly understanding. So that is really a level of difficulty as far as--how far do I have to go? Can I go and invest here? Will I be subject to constraints or controls or possibly enforcement and not have any ability to get guidance in that regard? Ms. Tenney. And I appreciate your comments and your testimony where you are distinguishing between the Administrative Procedures Act in the laws versus guidance and the failure on the part of the Bureau to really give good guidance and tutorials and the ability of these businesses to comply. So I do appreciate that. And also, I do believe that the old RESPA form, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, I had a friend that worked in Albany and said they are all in a storage house somewhere in Albany and no one has ever looked at them again. But that is the essence of overregulation is we regulate to the point where we are preventing the most needy, and some people who maybe aren't being treated fairly, for having the opportunity to have a loan, to buy a house. And as Mr. Williams talked about, to be able to buy a car, which is really important. So I am going to be running out of my time, but I thank you very much all of you. This has been really informative. And I am just going to say go Yankees, and I hope you all have a great day. Mr. Day. Thank you. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Keeping up with our baseball theme. Thank you for your yielding back. And with that, we go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Trott. He is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Trott. I want to thank the Chairman for organizing this most interesting hearing today. And for the record, I don't believe Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame. So I apologize I didn't hear the opening statements. We have the CEO from Ford Motor in today, so I was listening to him. But let me start with you, Mr. Shelton. You said you spent some time with Director Cordray. And Mr. Scott in his 5 minutes said that the CFPB has created a political fire pit, and I would agree with him. And I think it is in part because it is not on budget and it is not accountable. But I would also suggest that Director Cordray really had a political--who is now running for Governor of Ohio, really had a political agenda that he pursued while he was the director. Did you ever have occasion to read some of his press releases that he issued after he entered into a settlement with one of the targets of his investigation? Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir. Mr. Trott. So isn't it interesting that in the settlements, if you look at those, almost always the defendant never admitted any guilt or responsibility or culpability, but all of the press releases made it sound like the CFPB had brought this terrible big, bad company to justice and the consumers can be safe once again? Don't you think that contributed to the political fire pit problem? Mr. Shelton. I am not convinced I agree with your characterization of those press releases, though I appreciate your right to have the positions you do. Let me say that my experiences were quite different. Mr. Trott. OK. I appreciate your comment, and we will agree to disagree. Mr. Day, let me go to you. And so one of the arguments proffered by those who oppose any attempt to hold the CFPB accountable is that it will lead to rampant pillaging and abuse of consumers. So let me give you a hypothetical. You have been at Fidelity and Chicago before that for a few years, so you would be able to answer this perhaps better than anyone. Let's assume that one of your members entered into an MSA with a real estate broker that clearly violated and they knowingly violated RESPA. If the CFPB was now on budget and accountable, do you think that member would have nothing to worry about? Mr. Day. Thank you for the question. No, absolutely not. It is--I think as several of the witnesses here have talked today, the intent is still for the protection of the consumer and the focusing. And our industry is very much focused on that. And the bad practices are the ones that aren't actually being controlled through this. It is--the good practitioners who are being forced out, the bad practitioners may still be engaged in it. I don't think the accountability or--in any way creates a limitation that still would restrict the Bureau from enforcing the law. Mr. Trott. How many lawyers do you have at Fidelity who are trying to make sure your company does things right? Mr. Day. We have a multitude of lawyers that are-- Mr. Trott. Thirty, 30 lawyers, 50 lawyers? Mr. Day. Probably closer to 50. Mr. Trott. Yes. And those lawyers are not only worried about the CFPB in compliance with their ambiguous directives, but they are worried about State licensing authorities. They are worried about litigation. They are worried about whistleblowers. They are worried about class action lawsuits. They are worried about shareholder liability. They are worried about State attorney general, other Federal bodies. Isn't that a fair statement? There are an awful lot of people, aside from the CFPB, that you are worried about making sure you do things right with? Mr. Day. And I wouldn't--I don't know if I categorize this as worried about, but I would say that, yes, we have a multitude of regulators and watchdogs through either private actions or public regulators that our industry is subject to and regulated by in its rules and regulations, which we have been living up to through our careers. Mr. Trott. So the Democrats want this discussion to be about the Republicans' desire to return to the wild frontier where consumers can be abused and discriminated against, but your answer--I have a prop; I am glad I went toward the end here, Mr. Chairman. This is what this discussion is about. This is the oversight of the financial services industry. Every one of those little dots is a regulatory body or rule that they have to worry about. Mr. Hunt, I don't know how your members are in business. How can you possibly comply with this kind of regulatory oversight? Mr. Hunt. I will tell you that the fastest growing department within a bank is in compliance. If you are a lawyer-- Mr. Trott. And that doesn't generate any money, does it? Mr. Hunt. No, sir, it doesn't. If you are a lawyer in this country, you are going to be wealthy and fully employed for many years. Mr. Trott. Let's go back in the remaining seconds here, Mr. Day. Let's talk about TRID and the 1,900-page rule. So that lack of ambiguity and direction, no advisory opinion, no guidance whatsoever, what impact did that have on your members, on mortgage companies, and on consumers with respect to real estate closings that were either delayed or having to be postponed due to the lack of clarity relating to a 1,900-page rule? Mr. Day. Well initially, it delayed the closing process significantly. And as Mr. Hunt noted, that a lot of it was put forward without really a consideration of what all of the pieces are that needed to be put into play as to allow for its implementation. Costs from our members, all of new forms, new procedures, understanding with the disclosures, the fear of getting it right, and not having a real clarity or guidance as to how to go forward. So it was a major disruption, but our industry stepped forward, our association and the trade association led the charge and I think helped the industry overall to comply with it and move forward. Mr. Trott. I appreciate it. I am out of time. But I will close, Mr. Chairman, I would have raised my hand when Mr. Green was asking about whether there is discrimination today. Clearly, there is discrimination, unfortunately, in all aspects of our society, but the solution that Mr. Green was headed toward was to have a member of the central State Federal Government be the last decisionmaker on any and all loans, because that is the only way he could solve it through a Federal bureaucracy. Thank you for your time today. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. And with that, we have exhausted all of our witnesses in more ways than one. We also thank you, our witnesses, today for being here. It has been a very lively and entertaining and informative afternoon, and we appreciate your participation. Just a couple closing thoughts on my part here. Throughout the hearing, I think we have heard a theme of less choice of services, more costly services is what has happened as a result of some of CFPB's actions. I think we all know, and we have had testimony before, with regards to the numbers of banks and credit unions are going down one a day. I have even got a county or two in my State that no longer have any banks or credit unions headquartered in that county whatsoever, so all we are left with is so much as a facility or two. So what has to happen? Even the director himself was here and testified in committee recently and had four suggestions on how to improve it. He himself made the comment, he said, I am one of the most powerful guys in D.C., and I shouldn't be. And so we need to take look at this long and hard as to how we continue to work with the CFPB, what we need to be doing. Mr. Barr, I think it was, and Ms. Tenney both made some good comments with regards to what the Founders believed. They believed in checks and balances. That is the nature of our system here. You have got the three branches of Government, and each one of them should be a check and balance, and the CFPB should fall under that same situation, in my judgment. I appreciate your comments to that effect. And it is kind of interesting because, imagine, if you would, the Federal Reserve or the FDIC with no commission over it. What would happen if they had a single--if the Federal Reserve chairman would be the president of the Federal Reserve and he had nobody to answer to, or the chairman of the FDIC would have nobody to answer to? That is on the banking side. Would you like to have that? I think not. So why would we allow the director of the CFPB to be that independent? I struggle with that. And I think Mr. Hunt made some great points with regards to the amount of uncertainty that is caused by this pendulum effect that goes back and forth, back and forth. And Mr. Whitaker made a comment to that effect as well that, how do you prepare for that? How do you as somebody in business sit there and try to invest either in services or in people to try and figure out how you are going to position yourself to be able to, with a crystal ball on your desk, figure out what is the next rule and regulation coming down from above that you are going to have to figure out? This is where we are with this particular agency, and I think we have got to look at ways to find--to allow the pendulum to swing back where it needs to be where you protect the consumers, but you don't run the businesses out, provide the services. And so we want to find that sweet spot, and we appreciate what you have done today as witnesses to give us your information. It has been very helpful. 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, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X June 6, 2018 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]