79–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–420 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

EXAMINATION AND REPORTING THRESHOLD ACT OF 2017 

NOVEMBER 21, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HENSARLING, from the Committee on Financial Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3072] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 3072) to increase from $10,000,000,000 to 

$50,000,000,000 the threshold figure at which regulated depository 

institutions are subject to direct examination and reporting requirements of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

Introduced by Representative William Lacy Clay on June 27, 

2017, H.R. 3072, the ‘‘Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold Act of 2017’’, amends Section 

1025 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to increase from $10 to $50 billion the threshold at which 

depository institutions are subject to direct examination by and reporting requirements of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB). 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CPFB to act as the 

exclusive supervisory authority over banks, insured credit union 

2 

and other insured depository institutions with total assets of more 

than $10 billion for compliance with eighteen enumerated consumer protection laws. The CFPB also supervises nonbanks, regardless of size, including consumer mortgage companies (originators, brokers, servicers, and providers of loan modification or foreclosure relief services), payday lenders, and private education lenders. In certain specific markets, ‘‘larger participants’’ upon a CFPB 

rulemaking defining larger participants of that market, are also 

subject to the CFPB’s supervisory authority. As of November 27, 

2017, the CFPB has issued larger participant rules for the following markets: consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, student loan servicing, international money transfer, and automobile 

financing. 

For insured credit unions, and other insured depository institu- tions with total assets of less than $10 billion, the federal prudential regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), 

the Federal Reserve, and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) perform examinations to ensure compliance with the 

consumer financial laws. The CFPB may issue rules that apply to 

smaller institutions from authorities granted under the federal 

enumerated consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB also 

has the authority to include its examiners, on a sampling basis, at 

examinations of smaller institutions to assess compliance with the 

requirements of federal consumer financial laws. 

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB broad and unchecked authority to punish companies for unspecified acts or practices under its ‘‘Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices’’, 

or ‘‘UDAAP’’ authorities. Rather than use its rulemaking authority 

to define ‘‘abusive’’ so that supervised entities may conform their 

behavior accordingly, the CFPB defines ‘‘unfair,’’ ‘‘deceptive’’ and 

‘‘abusive’’ practices through enforcement activity. As such, there is 

no clear standard to follow for an entity under the CFPB’s authority to determine whether it is in violation of the law. 

The CFPB’s examination and enforcement authority allows it to 

conduct investigations to determine whether any person has engaged in conduct that violates federal consumer financial law. 

Under these broad authorities, the CFPB can require institutions 

provide it with vast amounts and types of information. The CFPB’s 

published examination manuals detail burdensome procedures that 

require institutions to locate and produce vast tranches of documents and records that touch nearly evert part of the business, 

which in turn force regulated entities to devote human and financial resources to respond to examiners’ interrogations. In some instances, financial institutions must submit to ongoing scrutiny of 

its entire regime of policies and procedures. 

As a result, the CFPB’s investigative findings often lead to public 

enforcement actions. The CFPB has a number of enforcement tools 

at its disposal when it completes an examination, including the 

power to investigate covered persons and service providers, to issue 

administrative subpoenas and compel testimony, issue cease-anddesist orders; and initiate actions in Federal court in order to obtain monetary relief for consumers and civil money penalties. 

The CFBP’s regulatory, examination and supervisory regime particularly burdens smaller community financial institutions relative 

3 

to their large competitors that are better able to absorb the associated costs. The weight and complexity of regulation for community 

financial institutions affects their ability to provide financial products and services necessary to allow small businesses to grow and 

consumers to access credit to realize their financial and personal 

goals. 

H.R. 3072 raises the asset threshold for the CFPB’s regulatory authority over financial institutions from $10 billion to $50 billion. 

As a result, the federal prudential regulators would resume the 

role as the primary supervisor and enforcement authority over financial institutions under $50 billion in assets. While this legislative change will not cause any financial institution to undergo any 

less supervision for compliance with consumer protection laws, it 

will result in continued protection for consumers and will simultaneously reduce burdensome regulations for community financial institutions and increase access to financial products and services, as 

smaller institutions will not be subject to yet another regulatory 

authority with it must maintain policies and procedures. 

In a statement in support for H.R. 3072 dated October 10, 2017, 

the Credit Union National Association wrote: 

One key reason that the CFPB is not focusing on problem actors is because they are spread thin as a result of 

requirements to supervise credit unions and small banks 

with more than $10 billion in assets. These institutions 

have been sufficiently supervised for consumer protection 

regulation by their prudential regulators in the past and 

can be again. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Financial Services held a hearing examining 

matters relating to H.R. 3072 on July 12, 2017. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on October 11 and 12, 2017 and ordered H.R. 3072 to be reported favorably to the House by a recorded vote of 39 yeas to 21 nays (Record 

vote no. FC–80), a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The sole recorded 

vote was on a motion by Chairman Hensarling to report the bill favorably to the House as amended. The motion was agreed to by a 

recorded vote of 39 yeas to 21 nays (Record vote no. FC–80), a 

quorum being present. 

4 


Insert offset folio 5 here HR420.001
5 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of the Committee based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in 

the descriptive portions of this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 3072 will reduce the regulatory burden on smaller financial institutions whereby only institutions with $50 billion or more in assets are subject 

to additional CFPB supervisory requirements. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, November 13, 2017. 

Hon. JEB HENSARLING, 

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3072, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold 

Act of 2017. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen Rabent. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3072—Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination 

and Reporting Threshold Act of 2017 

Under current law, in order to assess and enforce compliance 

with federal consumer financial laws, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) conducts examinations of and requires reporting from insured depository institutions and insured credit 

unions with total assets of more than $10 billion. For financial inVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:40 Nov 22, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
6 

stitutions with assets below $10 billion, compliance with consumer 

financial laws is performed by other financial regulators: the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit 

Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve. H.R. 3027 would raise 

the asset threshold for CFPB’s regulatory authority over financial 

institutions from $10 billion to $50 billion. 

Because enacting H.R. 3072 would affect direct spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 3072 would have an insignificant effect on deficits over the 2018–2027 period. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3072 would not increase net 

direct spending or significantly increase on-budget deficits in any 

of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

Moving responsibilities from the CFPB to the other financial regulators would decrease costs for the CFPB and increase costs to the 

FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and Federal Reserve to take on additional enforcement responsibilities. CBO estimates that on net, implementing H.R. 3072 would have an insignificant effect on the federal 

deficit over the 2018–2027 period. 

Based on information from the CFPB, CBO expects that staff 

currently allocated to enforcing consumer financial laws for banks 

with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion would be reallocated to examination and enforcement responsibilities for other financial institutions. However, CBO estimates travel and administrative costs for the agency would decline by about $8 million over 

the 2018–2017 period. 

CBO estimates that gross costs for the FDIC, OCC, and NCUA 

would increase by about $8 million over the 2018–2027 period. 

However, those agencies are authorized to collect fees and assessments from regulated institutions to cover administrative expenses. 

CBO expects that only half of those costs would be recovered within the 2018–2027 period, with the remaining amount would be collected after 2027. As a result, CBO estimates that, on net, enacting 

H.R. 3072 would increase direct spending by $4 million over the 

2018–2027 period. 

Increased administrative costs of the Federal Reserve are reflected in the budget as a reduction in revenue. CBO estimates that 

implementing H.R. 3072 would decrease revenues by $4 million 

over the 2018–2027 period. 

H.R. 3072 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

If the OCC and the NCUA increase fees to offset the costs associated with implementing the bill, H.R. 3072 would increase the cost 

of an existing mandate on private entities required to pay those assessments. CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold 

for private-sector mandates established in UMRA ($156 million in 

2017, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Stephen Rabent (for 

federal costs), Nathaniel Frentz (for revenues), and Logan Smith 

(for mandates). The estimate was approved by H. Samuel 

Papenfuss, Deputy Director for Budget Analysis. 

7 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain 

Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has determined that the bill does not impose a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate on State, local, or tribal governments. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of the section 102(b)(3) of the 

Congressional Accountability Act. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that no provision 

of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a program of the Federal 

Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program; 

(2) a program included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public 

Law 111–139; or (3) a program related to a program identified in 

the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published 

pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95– 

220, as amended by Pub. L. No. 98–169). 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULEMAKING

Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, (115th Congress), the following statement is made concerning directed rulemakings: The 

Committee estimates that the bill requires no directed rulemakings 

within the meaning of such section. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section cites H.R. 3072 as the ‘‘Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold Act of 2017.’’ 

Section 2. Increase in the examination threshold 

This section amends section 1025(a) of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5515(a)) to increase the scope of 

8 

coverage for covered persons with total assets of more than 

$10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000. 

Section 3. Increase in the reporting threshold 

This section amends section 1026(a) of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5516(a)) to increase the scope of 

coverage for covered persons with total assets of less than 

$10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000. 

Section 4. Effective date 

This section makes effective date upon which the act shall take 

effect as 45 days after the date of enactment. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE X—BUREAU OF CONSUMER 

FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—General Powers of the Bureau 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1025. SUPERVISION OF VERY LARGE BANKS, SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS, AND CREDIT UNIONS. 

(a) SCOPE OF COVERAGE.—This section shall apply to any covered 

person that is— 

(1) an insured depository institution with total assets of 

more than ø$10,000,000,000¿ $50,000,000,000 and any affiliate 

thereof; or 

(2) an insured credit union with total assets of more than 

ø$10,000,000,000¿ $50,000,000,000 and any affiliate thereof. 

(b) SUPERVISION.— 

9 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Bureau shall have exclusive authority 

to require reports and conduct examinations on a periodic basis 

of persons described in subsection (a) for purposes of— 

(A) assessing compliance with the requirements of Federal consumer financial laws; 

(B) obtaining information about the activities subject to 

such laws and the associated compliance systems or procedures of such persons; and 

(C) detecting and assessing associated risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products 

and services. 

(2) COORDINATION.—To minimize regulatory burden, the Bureau shall coordinate its supervisory activities with the supervisory activities conducted by prudential regulators and the 

State bank regulatory authorities, including consultation regarding their respective schedules for examining such persons 

described in subsection (a) and requirements regarding reports 

to be submitted by such persons. 

(3) USE OF EXISTING REPORTS.—The Bureau shall, to the fullest extent possible, use— 

(A) reports pertaining to a person described in subsection (a) that have been provided or required to have 

been provided to a Federal or State agency; and 

(B) information that has been reported publicly. 

(4) PRESERVATION OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this title may 

be construed as limiting the authority of the Director to require reports from a person described in subsection (a), as permitted under paragraph (1), regarding information owned or 

under the control of such person, regardless of whether such 

information is maintained, stored, or processed by another person. 

(5) REPORTS OF TAX LAW NONCOMPLIANCE.—The Bureau shall 

provide the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with any report 

of examination or related information identifying possible tax 

law noncompliance. 

(c) PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.— 

(1) THE BUREAU TO HAVE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.—To the extent that the Bureau and another Federal agency are authorized to enforce a Federal consumer financial law, 

the Bureau shall have primary authority to enforce that Federal consumer financial law with respect to any person described in subsection (a). 

(2) REFERRAL.—Any Federal agency, other than the Federal 

Trade Commission, that is authorized to enforce a Federal consumer financial law may recommend, in writing, to the Bureau 

that the Bureau initiate an enforcement proceeding with respect to a person described in subsection (a), as the Bureau is 

authorized to do by that Federal consumer financial law. 

(3) BACKUP ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL

AGENCY.—If the Bureau does not, before the end of the 120-day 

period beginning on the date on which the Bureau receives a 

recommendation under paragraph (2), initiate an enforcement 

proceeding, the other agency referred to in paragraph (2) may 

initiate an enforcement proceeding, including performing follow 

10 

up supervisory and support functions incidental thereto, to assure compliance with such proceeding. 

(d) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—A service provider to a person described 

in subsection (a) shall be subject to the authority of the Bureau 

under this section, to the same extent as if the Bureau were an appropriate Federal banking agency under section 7(c) of the Bank 

Service Company Act 12 U.S.C. 1867(c). In conducting any examination or requiring any report from a service provider subject to 

this subsection, the Bureau shall coordinate with the appropriate 

prudential regulator. 

(e) SIMULTANEOUS AND COORDINATED SUPERVISORY ACTION.— (1) EXAMINATIONS.—A prudential regulator and the Bureau 

shall, with respect to each insured depository institution, insured credit union, or other covered person described in subsection (a) that is supervised by the prudential regulator and 

the Bureau, respectively— 

(A) coordinate the scheduling of examinations of the insured depository institution, insured credit union, or other 

covered person described in subsection (a); 

(B) conduct simultaneous examinations of each insured 

depository institution or insured credit union, unless such 

institution requests examinations to be conducted separately; 

(C) share each draft report of examination with the 

other agency and permit the receiving agency a reasonable 

opportunity (which shall not be less than a period of 30 

days after the date of receipt) to comment on the draft report before such report is made final; and 

(D) prior to issuing a final report of examination or taking supervisory action, take into consideration concerns, if 

any, raised in the comments made by the other agency. 

(2) COORDINATION WITH STATE BANK SUPERVISORS.—The Bureau shall pursue arrangements and agreements with State 

bank supervisors to coordinate examinations, consistent with 

paragraph (1). 

(3) AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICT IN SUPERVISION.— (A) REQUEST.—If the proposed supervisory determinations of the Bureau and a prudential regulator (in this section referred to collectively as the ‘‘agencies’’) are conflicting, an insured depository institution, insured credit 

union, or other covered person described in subsection (a) 

may request the agencies to coordinate and present a joint 

statement of coordinated supervisory action. 

(B) JOINT STATEMENT.—The agencies shall provide a 

joint statement under subparagraph (A), not later than 30 

days after the date of receipt of the request of the insured 

depository institution, credit union, or covered person described in subsection (a). 

(4) APPEALS TO GOVERNING PANEL.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If the agencies do not resolve the conflict or issue a joint statement required by subparagraph 

(B), or if either of the agencies takes or attempts to take 

any supervisory action relating to the request for the joint 

statement without the consent of the other agency, an insured depository institution, insured credit union, or other 

11 

covered person described in subsection (a) may institute an 

appeal to a governing panel, as provided in this subsection, 

not later than 30 days after the expiration of the period 

during which a joint statement is required to be filed 

under paragraph (3)(B). 

(B) COMPOSITION OF GOVERNING PANEL.—The governing 

panel for an appeal under this paragraph shall be composed of— 

(i) a representative from the Bureau and a representative of the prudential regulator, both of 

whom— 

(I) have not participated in the material supervisory determinations under appeal; and 

(II) do not directly or indirectly report to the 

person who participated materially in the supervisory determinations under appeal; and 

(ii) one individual representative, to be determined 

on a rotating basis, from among the Board of Governors, the Corporation, the National Credit Union 

Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency, other than any agency involved in the 

subject dispute. 

(C) CONDUCT OF APPEAL.—In an appeal under this paragraph— 

(i) the insured depository institution, insured credit 

union, or other covered person described in subsection 

(a)— 

(I) shall include in its appeal all the facts and 

legal arguments pertaining to the matter; and 

(II) may, through counsel, employees, or representatives, appear before the governing panel in 

person or by telephone; and 

(ii) the governing panel— 

(I) may request the insured depository institution, insured credit union, or other covered person 

described in subsection (a), the Bureau, or the 

prudential regulator to produce additional information relevant to the appeal; and 

(II) by a majority vote of its members, shall provide a final determination, in writing, not later 

than 30 days after the date of filing of an 

informationally complete appeal, or such longer 

period as the panel and the insured depository institution, insured credit union, or other covered 

person described in subsection (a) may jointly 

agree. 

(D) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DETERMINATIONS.—A governing panel shall publish all information contained in a 

determination by the governing panel, with appropriate 

redactions of information that would be subject to an exemption from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 

United States Code. 

(E) PROHIBITION AGAINST RETALIATION.—The Bureau 

and the prudential regulators shall prescribe rules to provide safeguards from retaliation against the insured deposVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:40 Nov 22, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR420.XXX HR420
12 

itory institution, insured credit union, or other covered 

person described in subsection (a) instituting an appeal 

under this paragraph, as well as their officers and employees. 

(F) LIMITATION.—The process provided in this paragraph 

shall not apply to a determination by a prudential regulator to appoint a conservator or receiver for an insured 

depository institution or a liquidating agent for an insured 

credit union, as the case may be, or a decision to take action pursuant to section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831o) or section 212 of the Federal 

Credit Union Act (112 U.S.C. 1790a), as applicable. 

(G) EFFECT ON OTHER AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section shall modify or limit the authority of the Bureau to 

interpret, or take enforcement action under, any Federal 

consumer financial law, or the authority of a prudential 

regulator to interpret or take enforcement action under 

any other provision of Federal law for safety and soundness purposes. 

SEC. 1026. OTHER BANKS, SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS, AND CREDIT 

UNIONS. 

(a) SCOPE OF COVERAGE.—This section shall apply to any covered 

person that is— 

(1) an insured depository institution with total assets of 

ø$10,000,000,000¿ $50,000,000,000 or less; or 

(2) an insured credit union with total assets of 

ø$10,000,000,000¿ $50,000,000,000 or less. 

(b) REPORTS.—The Director may require reports from a person 

described in subsection (a), as necessary to support the role of the 

Bureau in implementing Federal consumer financial law, to support its examination activities under subsection (c), and to assess 

and detect risks to consumers and consumer financial markets. 

(1) USE OF EXISTING REPORTS.—The Bureau shall, to the fullest extent possible, use— 

(A) reports pertaining to a person described in subsection (a) that have been provided or required to have 

been provided to a Federal or State agency; and 

(B) information that has been reported publicly. 

(2) PRESERVATION OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this subsection 

may be construed as limiting the authority of the Director from 

requiring from a person described in subsection (a), as permitted under paragraph (1), information owned or under the 

control of such person, regardless of whether such information 

is maintained, stored, or processed by another person. 

(3) REPORTS OF TAX LAW NONCOMPLIANCE.—The Bureau shall 

provide the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with any report 

of examination or related information identifying possible tax 

law noncompliance. 

(c) EXAMINATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Bureau may, at its discretion, include 

examiners on a sampling basis of the examinations performed 

by the prudential regulator to assess compliance with the requirements of Federal consumer financial law of persons described in subsection (a). 

(2) AGENCY COORDINATION.—The prudential regulator shall— 

13 

(A) provide all reports, records, and documentation related to the examination process for any institution included in the sample referred to in paragraph (1) to the 

Bureau on a timely and continual basis; 

(B) involve such Bureau examiner in the entire examination process for such person; and 

(C) consider input of the Bureau concerning the scope of 

an examination, conduct of the examination, the contents 

of the examination report, the designation of matters requiring attention, and examination ratings. 

(d) ENFORCEMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except for requiring reports under subsection (b), the prudential regulator is authorized to enforce 

the requirements of Federal consumer financial laws and, with 

respect to a covered person described in subsection (a), shall 

have exclusive authority (relative to the Bureau) to enforce 

such laws. 

(2) COORDINATION WITH PRUDENTIAL REGULATOR.— (A) REFERRAL.—When the Bureau has reason to believe 

that a person described in subsection (a) has engaged in a 

material violation of a Federal consumer financial law, the 

Bureau shall notify the prudential regulator in writing and 

recommend appropriate action to respond. 

(B) RESPONSE.—Upon receiving a recommendation under 

subparagraph (A), the prudential regulator shall provide a 

written response to the Bureau not later than 60 days 

thereafter. 

(e) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—A service provider to a substantial 

number of persons described in subsection (a) shall be subject to 

the authority of the Bureau under section 1025 to the same extent 

as if the Bureau were an appropriate Federal bank agency under 

section 7(c) of the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1867(c)). 

When conducting any examination or requiring any report from a 

service provider subject to this subsection, the Bureau shall coordinate with the appropriate prudential regulator. 

* * * * * * * 

(14) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 3072, ‘‘the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold Act,’’ would significantly undermine a key authority of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), by preventing the 

Consumer Bureau from supervising, and enforcing its rules against 

large banks and credit unions with assets between $10 billion and 

$50 billion. 

Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in response to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. During this crisis, shoddy 

mortgage lending practices that ripped off millions of Americans 

led to dramatic failures on Wall Street and economic pain for Main 

Street. Notably, the costliest bank failure for the government during the financial crisis was not that of a megabank, but of IndyMac 

Bank, which had total consolidated assets of $30 billion but caused 

$12 billion in losses to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s 

Deposit Insurance Fund. IndyMac’s failure was a direct result of its 

predatory loan portfolio, as well as an unwillingness of its regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, to stop this activity. 

As part of Dodd-Frank, Congress consolidated the disparate consumer protection laws into one agency: the Consumer Bureau. Congress also authorized the Consumer Bureau with supervisory and 

enforcement authority against only the very largest banks and 

credit unions, those with more than $10 billion in assets, such as 

IndyMac Bank, as well as non-bank financial institutions. As of 

June 30, 2017, the Consumer Bureau supervised 124 insured depository institutions out of a total of 11,483, representing only one 

percent of financial institutions. Nevertheless, these institutions 

represent about 81 percent of all industry assets, ensuring that the 

Consumer Bureau’s supervision and enforcement is appropriately 

targeted. 

H.R. 3072, however, would revoke the Consumer Bureau’s supervision and enforcement authority for nearly 2⁄3 of depository institutions subject to Consumer Bureau supervision and enforcement 

by raising the threshold to $50 billion. If this bill was enacted two 

years ago, it would have precluded the Consumer Bureau from 

identifying and stopping institutions that were harming consumers. 

For example, the Consumer Bureau stopped a $49 billion bank and 

its affiliate from discriminating against consumers by providing individuals living in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands with inferior 

credit and charge cards, and required the institutions to pay back 

the 200,000 consumers harmed. The Consumer Bureau also ordered another institution with $18 billion in assets to pay $27.5 

million to nearly 257,000 consumers who were harmed by the deceptive marketing the bank used to lure consumers into certain 

costly products. Both of these institutions would have been exempt 

15 

under H.R. 3072, and could still be harming consumers if not for 

the efforts of the Consumer Bureau. 

The Consumer Bureau’s authority is a crucial part of its ability 

to conduct rulemaking and bring enforcement actions against financial institutions that engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive 

acts or practices. Limiting the Consumer Bureau’s supervisory and 

enforcement authority to only the megabanks with more than $50 

billion, would only end up harming hardworking Americans. 

For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 3072. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

KEITH ELLISON. 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO. 

DENNY HECK. 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY. 

AL GREEN. 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH. 

BRAD SHERMAN. 

RUBEN J. KIHUEN. 

GREGORY W. MEEKS. 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. 

GWEN MOORE. 

JUAN VARGAS. 

Æ