U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–395 PDF 2007

IMPROVING FEDERAL CONSUMER PROTECTION

IN FINANCIAL SERVICES—CONSUMER

AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

July 25, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–55

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 25, 2007 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 25, 2007 ..................................................................................................... 31

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007

Gaberlavage, George, Director, Policy Research & Development, Consumer 

and State Affairs, Public Policy Institute, AARP .............................................. 9

Gonzalez, Raul, Legislative Director, National Council of La Raza .................... 7

Johnson, Arthur C., Vice President, American Bankers Association, and 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, United Bank of Michigan .................. 10

Plunkett, Travis B., Legislative Director, Consumer Federation of America ..... 5

Sivon, James C., Partner, Barnett, Sivon & Natter PC ....................................... 12

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Gaberlavage, George ........................................................................................ 74

Gonzalez, Raul .................................................................................................. 67

Johnson, Arthur C. ........................................................................................... 81

Plunkett, Travis B. ........................................................................................... 32

Sivon, James C. ................................................................................................ 100

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Frank, Hon. Barney: 

Statement of the National Association of Realtors ........................................ 111

(1)

IMPROVING FEDERAL CONSUMER 

PROTECTION IN FINANCIAL 

SERVICES—CONSUMER AND 

INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES 

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barney Frank [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Frank, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, 

Green, Cleaver, Klein, Perlmutter; Gillmor, Neugebauer, McHenry, 

and Bachmann. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will begin the hearing. I thank the witnesses 

for appearing. 

This hearing is one in a series of hearings on the question of 

what does consumer protection look like in the banking area, in 

particular after preemption. 

As I have said before, there are some of us who wish that the 

preemption had not happened. I do. I also wish that I did not get 

more tired at my age than I did 30 years ago and that I could eat 

more and not gain weight. I have found it unwise to act on the latter two of these, and we are having a hearing today because it 

would not be wise to act on the first of them either. 

The preemption is not going away. If and when there were to be 

a change in the political climate in which it might be that you 

could repeal it, we could very well be in a situation, and I am inclined to think we would be, where enough eggs have been scrambled so that unscrambling them would be difficult. 

I would tell you that those who want to preserve the preemption 

should join in our effort to make sure that preemption comes with 

adequate consumer protection. 

In a couple of years, frankly, if the presidency changes hands, 

and there is still a feeling that the Federal bank regulators having 

preempted State laws do not themselves have enough in terms of 

authority and resources and will to do consumer protection, then 

the preemption will be called into question. 

I do not think that is the preferred option. The preferred option 

is to say okay, here is where we are, let’s spend the next year or 

so working this out. I must say I am convinced from conversations 

that the current set of tools and resources that the Federal bank 

regulators have were configured in an era in which the assumption 

2

was that there was a lot of State consumer regulation going on as 

well. There is now, for national banks, virtually no State consumer 

regulation, certainly none that is specific to those banks. 

It is not a matter of anyone’s fault; it is just that there has been 

a change. We had one set of circumstances, and now we have another. 

Part of the issue, and what I am going to ask people to address, 

is that the Federal Reserve has the authority under the Federal 

Trade Commission Act to spell out unfair and deceptive practices. 

Both the Comptroller of the Currency and the Chairman of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have said—these are not 

consumer groups but two Federal regulatory agencies—they would 

like their own authority to deal with unfair and deceptive practices 

under the Federal Trade Commission Act spelled out. 

The Federal Reserve has said no, they do not want to do that. 

They think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. There are 

problems when you are doing things case-by-case, but I do not 

want to be punitive. We certainly are not looking for a regime in 

which we lock up a lot more people. 

The total absence of any negative sanctions almost guarantees 

that you will not have effective enforcement. It really is not enough 

for consumer enforcement if the rule is okay, whenever you do 

something wrong, we will tell you to stop doing it. There needs to 

be some incentive to stop doing it before you start doing it. 

Absent penalties, that cannot be done. If you are in a case-bycase situation under basic precepts of American law, which we all 

support, that becomes harder to do. You do not penalize someone 

for doing something when there was some ambiguity about whether he or she had the right to do it. 

In the absence of some rules spelled out, you have a harder time 

enforcing when appropriate. It does seem to me that people ought 

to know what the rules are. 

Again, both the OCC and the FDIC have said they would like to 

have those rules spelled out. I know the Office of Thrift Supervision, which shares the preemption with the OCC, has in fact 

spelled out some rules. 

Apparently Congress, in some combination of moods, gave the 

independent power to the OTS, but said that the OCC and the 

FDIC had to ask the Fed. That is a result for which no rational 

explanation is even conceivable, much less likely. 

I do not know what we collectively were thinking when we did 

that. Probably nothing. Probably we were busy with something 

else. That is what happens in large, comprehensive legislation. 

That is why we have oversight. 

My strong view now is that something should be done legislatively to correct that. I do not understand why the OTS should 

have its own rules spelled out, but the OCC and the FDIC should 

not. 

There are a lot of questions, questions about whether or not the 

States are involved. The States have a good deal of expertise in 

regulation here. We have met with State attorneys general and 

State bank supervisors. There is also the enforcement power at the 

State consumer level. You have attorney general enforcement 

3

power. It is not clear now who can go to court, and if that is appropriate. 

Let me close by saying that this is an issue on which we invite 

all of you to help us. The goal here is to come up with a rational 

and fair scheme of consumer protection. 

I believe, as many of you know, and I think we have demonstrated, in consumer protection and a good understanding of the 

importance of financial institutions being able to perform their 

intermediation role, if those are wholly compatible. Our job is to 

come up with a better system than we have now, not because anybody individually did something wrong, but because the preemption 

makes that necessary. 

I will just take 10 more seconds in probably a vain effort to try 

and explain to the press that my repeated criticism over the recent 

year-and-a-half of the Federal Reserve for not using its authority 

has not primarily been aimed at their authority under the Home 

Equity Protection Act. It has been under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 

It is as if some in the financial press cannot write about more 

than one subject at a time, or cannot think about more than one 

subject at a time. 

When we talk about consumer protection, we are not talking only 

about subprime mortgages. Indeed, we will probably be doing something particular and special for subprime mortgages. 

This is about the broader general question of consumer protection involving a whole range of issues. It is that the Federal Reserve has simply told us they are not interested in using that authority, and that we probably, at the end of these hearings, are 

going to want to put it somewhere else, but that is something we 

will wait to hear from you on. 

I will now call on the ranking member. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Bachus could not be here and asked me to sit in for him temporarily, 

and to read a statement from him, but I also want to echo what 

you said, Mr. Chairman. 

There are a number of areas the committee has been looking at, 

and will be looking at, in the consumer area, not just subprime but 

credit cards, overdraft fees, and a number of other areas. 

A statement from Ranking Member Bachus is as follows: 

‘‘Thank you, Chairman Frank, for holding this important hearing 

on improving consumer protections in financial services. In light of 

the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Wachovia v. Watters 

case, it is important that this committee re-examine the legal 

framework as it affects consumers of financial products and services. 

‘‘U.S. financial systems set the gold standard for economies 

around the world. Thanks to innovations ranging from credit cards 

to Internet banking, American consumers have more choices and 

options available to them than ever before. 

‘‘While these innovations have helped fuel a period of unprecedented economic growth, not all consumers have benefitted. For the 

financially illiterate, more choices can mean greater opportunities 

to make bad decisions. 

4

‘‘This has underscored the importance of developing strategies 

that will empower consumers by providing them with the information and the tools they need to protect themselves. 

‘‘The agencies have begun making a number of strides in enhancing regulatory cooperation, including the recent Memorandum of 

Understanding between the OCC and the Conference of State 

Banking Supervisors, to facilitate prompt referral of consumer complaints to the Federal or State agency with the regulatory authority to obtain redress for the consumer. 

‘‘Other constructive initiatives in this regard include the new 

Web site that the OCC has developed for consumers to lodge complaints and the announcement last week by Federal agencies and 

State regulators that they will collaborate on an innovative pilot 

project to conduct targeted consumer protection compliance reviews 

of selected non-depository lenders with significant subprime mortgage operations. 

‘‘Even with these developments, it is my belief that there may be 

areas where legislative action is necessary. For example, in light of 

recent problems in the subprime market, it has become clear that 

we need a national registry and licensing system for mortgage 

originators so that the bad actors do not move from State to State 

victimizing consumers with impunity. 

‘‘The legislation I introduced 2 weeks ago with Congressmen 

Gillmor and Price, members of the committee, would establish such 

a system. Promoting accountability and professionalism among 

mortgage originators and addressing a gap in the current regulatory framework. 

‘‘Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the perspective of our 

witnesses on this and other consumer protection issues, and I 

thank you for holding today’s hearing.’’ 

Mr. GILLMOR. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I especially thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for framing the issues for us. I always try to get 

here on time because I benefit from your framing of the issues. 

I am honored today to be here to hear the perspectives from both 

the consumers as well as the industry as it relates to these issues: 

Unfair, deceptive financial practices and the regulators’ ability to 

deal with them; the addressing of complaints and how we can improve the complaint process; and the role of the State regulatory 

agencies and the enforcement agencies. 

If I could, I would just like to say this. One of the things that 

kind of fascinated me when I had an opportunity to review the materials is the notion that there may be some means of according 

one-stop-shopping to consumers, so that consumers might have just 

one number or one place, one agency, that they can initiate their 

concerns, and from there, can go to many other places, a multiplicity of other places, of course. 

I think consumers are so inundated with materials now, so much 

comes to us through the mail, e-mail, that it would be a great benefit for us to focus on this and see if it is achievable, such that consumers might better benefit from what is available to them. 

5

Many consumers are just not aware of what is available, the 

methodology, the process. I think this may be a good thing for the 

average consumer. I look forward to hearing testimony on it. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I will have to leave. I have another hearing, so I will be in and out. I do look forward to this. I 

thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, of 

course, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further opening statements? 

If not, we will go to the witnesses. We will begin with Travis 

Plunkett, who is the legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America. 

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS B. PLUNKETT, LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. PLUNKETT. Good morning, Chairman Frank, and Representative Gillmor. My name is Travis Plunkett, and I am the legislative 

director at the Consumer Federation of America. I am speaking 

today on behalf of six national consumer organizations with tens of 

millions of members. 

I commend the committee for its diligence in examining this important question about how to better protect consumers in the financial services marketplace, especially using Federal regulatory 

authority. 

As Mr. Gillmor mentioned, the elephant in the living room is the 

Supreme Court’s Watters decision, which is the culmination of efforts by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to cut off the 

States’ abilities to protect consumers of national banks. 

These preemptive efforts over a number of years have harmed 

consumers, because while the States’ regulatory efforts have been 

far from perfect in many respects, and the committee has highlighted some of those imperfections, States traditionally have had 

the experience, the regulatory infrastructure, the willingness to experiment, and the desire to protect consumers. 

Unfortunately, the OCC and some of the other Federal banking 

regulators are lacking in each of those areas. 

Our recommendation is for the committee to continue to examine 

Representative Gutierrez’s legislation that would restore in some 

modest ways the States’ abilities to protect consumers who purchase financial services from the national banks. 

In looking at the Federal regulatory scheme, we encourage you 

to look at the detailed examples I have in our testimony of the failure by Federal agencies to protect consumers beyond the mortgage 

lending arena. 

This committee, rightly so, has spent a lot of time in looking at 

failures to regulate at the State and the Federal level regarding 

subprime mortgage lending. 

In my testimony, however, I also address failures in regards to 

credit card regulation, overdraft loans, the availability of deposits 

to consumers under the Check 21 law, Internet payday lending, unlawful garnishment of Social Security funds, and the manipulation 

of payment order of checks by national banks. 

The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit has examined problems with credit card regulation at length. 

6

They have spoken a lot about the Federal Reserve’s new disclosure 

proposal regarding Regulation Z of the Truth In Lending Act. 

This proposal is helpful in some respects but it does nothing to 

stem many of the abusive practices the subcommittee has heard 

about: Interest rates that are assessed for virtually no reason that 

climb to over 30 percent; late fees when payments are not late; 

tricks that credit card issuers use to assess late fees when they are 

essentially paid on time; and a number of other problems in the 

credit card marketplace. 

Credit cards are Exhibit A as to why some Federal banking agencies have failed in their efforts to protect consumers. They have 

failed in areas where they have some jurisdiction to act right now. 

Regarding consumer assistance efforts, the OCC has trumpeted 

their consumer assistance group. What they say is they are vigilant 

in responding to consumer complaints. We could not disagree more. 

As Professor Art Wilmarth pointed out in testimony before the 

subcommittee, compared to other financial regulators, a much higher percentage of complaints filed with the OCC were closed because 

consumers either withdrew their complaints or commenced litigation. Meanwhile, the percentage of complaints in which the OCC 

found bank errors declined steadily, a strong indication that many 

consumers didn’t find the OCC helpful. 

Just last week, the OCC rolled out with much fanfare a new consumer assistance Web site. We find the Web site to be lacking in 

several areas. It is very discouraging in many respects regarding 

complaints consumers may have about banks, for instance, regarding the practice of clearing checks from the smallest amount to the 

largest check in order to increase bounced check fee income. 

In at least one case, this Web site does not provide complete information to consumers about their legal rights regarding disputes 

if a product is purchased with a credit card. 

One of the most difficult problems the committee is going to face 

when examining these problems is the culture of coziness that exists between some banking agencies—I am exempting the FDIC 

here—and the regulated institutions. 

There are a number of underlying reasons for this, which we address in our testimony. Let me just mention a few. 

First, the OCC and the OTS in particular are funded virtually 

entirely by assessments from regulated banks. A large portion of 

that funding comes from a fairly small number of banks. 

Second, there is an over reliance on the examination process as 

opposed to enforcement, which means the process is not transparent and accountable. 

I will summarize here because my time is up. I would urge you 

to look at the recommendations that we have for making the regulatory process more independent and for addressing the underlying 

problems I mentioned. In particular, we encourage the committee 

to look at giving the Federal Trade Commission the authority to 

bring enforcement actions against national banks and thrifts for 

unfair and deceptive practices, and giving it concurrent and independent rule making authority over all matters covered by the FTC 

Act. 

7

Unlike the banking agencies, the FTC has no responsibility to 

protect the profitability of the financial institutions that they regulate; its sole job is to focus on consumer protection. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Plunkett can be found on page 

32 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. [presiding] Thank you. 

Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RAUL GONZALEZ, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. Thank you to the committee for holding this hearing and inviting us to participate. 

My name is Raul Gonzalez, and I am the legislative director at 

the National Council of La Raza. What I would like to do today is 

talk about our Latinos and the credit card market and provide 

some broad recommendations for expanding access to affordable 

credit to Latinos and shifting the balance of power back into the 

hands of consumers. 

NCLR has worked to improve the opportunities for Hispanics in 

the United States since 1968. Part of our mission includes advancing policies that enable Latinos to build and maintain assets and 

wealth. 

With regard to credit cards, we have begun conducting research 

on obtaining firsthand accounts from our community on their experiences with credit cards and doing other policy analyses. 

For example, last summer, we held a roundtable discussion 

which included individuals who collect complaints regarding credit 

cards. We heard lots of complaints related to the high cost of fees 

associated with using credit cards and Latinos also filed numerous 

complaints about the difficulty in evaluating credit card offers and 

finding a card with desirable terms. 

We also released an issues brief entitled, ‘‘Latino Credit Card 

Use: Debt Trap or Ticket to Prosperity?’’ In this paper, we described disparities in credit card use and in the application of penalty rates and fees on Latino credit card accounts. 

I would like to briefly discuss key issues for Latinos in the credit 

card market. These include unmanageable debt, credit card scams, 

and hidden policies that result in revolving debt. 

NCLR operates a national home ownership network which has 

gotten tens of thousands of Hispanics into home ownership. Every 

year, we interface with folks who are unable to go through the 

process because they have unmanageable debt. 

It is clear the unmanageable debt that they have that precludes 

them from home ownership also makes them vulnerable to obtaining credit cards with unfair and high APRs, and this makes it difficult for them to climb into the American middle class. 

In addition to unmanageable debt, we are hearing from the community that several credit card related scams have been targeted 

to Latino consumers. These scams include fraudulent credit repair 

services, affinity credit card scams, and fake credit cards sold to 

consumers. 

With regard to industry policies and practices, we know that 

many low-income Latino consumers are unaware of harmful poliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 038395 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38395.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
8

cies such as universal default and double billing for purchases 

made abroad. 

They also do not understand the relationship between the minimum payment requirement on the credit cards and their credit 

card balance. 

For Latinos, access to affordable credit has become increasingly 

critical as they hope to gain access to the middle class. 

As you debate how to address abusive credit card policies and 

practices, we ask that you consider the experiences of low-income 

Latino families. 

On the one hand, Latinos are becoming more integrated into the 

financial fabric of the country. They are using credit cards more 

and more. On the other hand, they are using credit cards to pay 

for their basic needs, and they are also acquiring debt. 

There are several challenges that make it difficult for Latinos to 

access the credit card system and build credit, including using 

credit cards to pay for their basics. 

According to one survey, 39 percent of Latinos reported basic living expenses and 30 percent reported medical expenses as contributing to household debt. They are using their credit cards to pay 

for these. 

A second challenge is the difficulty that Latinos experience getting into the credit card system; 22 percent of Hispanic borrowers 

have no credit score and many others have a very thin file. The 

methods to evaluate creditworthiness make it difficult for these individuals to obtain a credit card with a fair APR. 

Latinos are more likely than whites to pay interest rates which 

exceed 20 percent as a result of this. As a result, Latinos are not 

just in a vulnerable position with regard to credit cards, but they 

are also in a vulnerable position with regard to other debt they 

have, including their homes. 

In addressing credit card reforms, policymakers should begin by 

banning harmful industry policies and practices. This would include universal default, changing term provisions, deceptive monthly minimum payment requirements, double billing on purchases 

made abroad, mandatory arbitration and the inflation and application of fees. 

We also believe that policymakers should improve the system for 

collecting and reporting on consumer complaints. 

There is an enormous opportunity for law makers and industry 

leaders to integrate Latinos into the mainstream financial system. 

This committee should move forward to enact legislation that shifts 

the balance of power back into the hands of consumers, including 

focusing on financial counseling. 

We applaud the committee for holding this hearing and look forward to working with you on this legislation. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez can be found on page 

67 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. Gaberlavage, for 5 minutes. 

9

STATEMENT OF GEORGE GABERLAVAGE, DIRECTOR, POLICY 

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, CONSUMER AND STATE AFFAIRS, PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, AARP 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative 

Gillmor, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. 

A major priority for AARP is to assist Americans in accumulating 

and effectively managing adequate retirement assets. Key to 

achieving this goal is helping individuals better manage financial 

decisions and protecting consumers from financial fraud and abuse 

that can erode retirement savings and financial resources. 

The recent meltdown in the subprime mortgage market, rising 

levels of foreclosures and credit card debt, increasing bank fees and 

questionable practices, and a steady erosion of State authority to 

protect consumers have brought us here today. 

Consider a few statistics: One out of every five families with a 

subprime mortgage is expected to lose their home to foreclosure. 

Last year, Americans paid over $89 billion in credit card fees, interest, and other charges, and consumers paid over $17.5 billion in 

overdraft fees last year, an increase of 75 percent from 2 years ago. 

Add to this list the cost to consumers of fraudulent demand 

drafts used to access consumer bank accounts, unequal treatment 

of debits and credits to checking accounts under Check 21 provisions, and unauthorized garnishment of Social Security and other 

Federal benefits, and it is clear why so many consumers find themselves in financial difficulty. 

Over the course of the last several decades, the effectiveness of 

the regulatory system has eroded as the State role in credit regulation has been preempted and the Federal Government has declined 

to fill the gap. 

In order to turn the tide, there are a number of substantial hurdles in the current Federal system that will first have to be overcome. These include an emphasis on safety and soundness regulation, potentially at the expense of consumer protection; a reliance 

on examinations in case-by-case actions rather than rule making 

and enforcement; slow action by regulators in the face of overwhelming evidence of a problem; and dependence on disclosure 

rather than substantive regulation to protect consumers. 

Today, Congress has a very real opportunity to enact meaningful 

reforms that will minimize abusive practices and institutionalize 

reform so that progress continues when the current spotlight dims. 

Among AARP’s legislative recommendations are the following: 

First, authorize the Federal Trade Commission to bring enforcement actions against national banks and thrifts for unfair or deceptive practices. Given the FTC concurrent and independent authority over national banks for all matters covered by the FTC Act. 

Second, allow States to enforce the Federal lending laws and 

Federal unfair or deceptive practice provisions of the FTC Act 

against national banks. 

Third, as discussed more fully in our written statement, adopt 

meaningful Federal reforms on a wide range of consumer issues including credit cards, overdraft and other bank fees, and subprime 

lending. 

10

Fourth, put in place real opportunities for consumer redress in 

the wake of abusive practices. 

Finally, establish an effective centralized complaint reporting 

and resolution mechanism. 

At the same time, we encourage Congress to integrate as fully 

as possible the States as partners in the effort to restore fairness 

to consumers in the financial marketplace. 

Experience shows that States have been leaders in finding innovative solutions to the types of problems we are discussing today. 

In closing, we urge Congress to do all that it can to ensure that 

Federal and State regulators and enforcement officials are given 

the tools they need to adequately protect consumers from the 

abuses we are witnessing today, and those that will emerge in the 

future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaberlavage can be found on 

page 74 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will hear from Arthur Johnson 

on behalf of the American Bankers Association, who is here to testify on matters he is discussing with Members of Congress these 

days. 

Mr. Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR C. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, AND CHAIRMAN AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED BANK OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Chairman Frank, Representative 

Gillmor, and members of the committee, my name is Art Johnson, 

and I am chairman and CEO of United Bank of Michigan, and I 

also serve as vice chairman of the American Bankers Association. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present ABA’s 

views on how to best protect consumers in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Watters v. Wachovia. That decision settled 

the question of who has jurisdiction over the operational subsidies 

of national banks and was the latest in a long line of court decisions supporting the dual banking system. 

As requested, today we will be focusing on regulatory structures 

to protect consumers today and not on specific products or practices. 

ABA believes that the dual banking system is the best framework to ensure a balanced legal and regulatory environment for the 

efficient and effective enforcement of consumer protection laws. 

We believe that the division of responsibility among State banking agencies, State law enforcement, and Federal regulators is appropriate, with each agency able to focus its resources on institutions within its primary jurisdiction. 

While State law enforcement authorities naturally share concern 

about consumer protection, we believe the bank regulators are in 

the best position to achieve this objective through a vast array of 

supervisory and remedial options available to them. Moreover, due 

to frequent examination and access to a bank’s books, regulators 

have a more complete picture of any bank and are in a better position to stop problems early and choose appropriate corrective measures. 

11

I would note that States face real issues arising from the institutions within their primary jurisdiction that demand their attention 

and enforcement resources. 

As was noted repeatedly at the hearing before this committee 

just a few weeks ago, many of the problems in the subprime area, 

for example, have arisen in institutions outside the enforcement jurisdiction of Federal bank regulators. 

With a clear division of authority, redundant supervision and enforcement can be avoided. It is, however, appropriate for these entities to coordinate their efforts to protect consumers as they have 

recently done through information sharing agreements, parallel examinations, and referrals of customer complaints to the appropriate regulator. 

In short, after the Watters decision, we can stop working at cross 

purposes and focus instead on cooperating among different agencies 

with the common purpose of ensuring that customers are treated 

fairly. 

This cooperation is further evidenced in the Federal system by 

providing extensive and uniform protection for consumers through 

interagency exam procedures. 

In addition, each Federal agency has implemented a consumer 

complaint process to address any claims of unfair or deceptive practices. However, only the Federal Reserve Board, the OTS, and the 

NCUA have explicit authority to make rules under Federal unfair 

and deceptive acts and practices, or the UDAP law; the OCC and 

the FDIC do not. 

To address this anomaly, we support vesting all of the Federal 

banking agencies with UDAP rule writing authority to be exercised 

jointly. Only through joint authority can we ensure that the UDAP 

law is uniformly enforced. 

However, in exercising this authority, it is important to target 

unfair or deceptive practices and not target products that may otherwise benefit consumers. 

Before closing, I want to emphasize how seriously bankers take 

their responsibilities to treat our customers fairly. Take my bank, 

for example. We have a compliance training program that is required for all of our employees, not just our compliance officer. 

In addition, compliance management plays a role in every aspect 

of our bank that touches our customers. Our directors hold our employees accountable for meeting their obligations. This is especially 

true for our compliance officer, who in the case of our bank, just 

happens to be my son. 

The important thing to realize is that our bank is typical of thousands of others that invest heavily in a compliance culture, each 

with dedicated compliance professionals who take great pride in ensuring that consumers in the dual banking system are being treated fairly. 

I like to say that compliance is everyone’s business, because each 

time we serve a customer, we have an opportunity to show our respect for them and that we deserve their trust and their business. 

This is the cornerstone of successful banking. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

12

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson can be found on page 

81 of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Next is Jim Sivon, who is a partner 

at Barnett, Sivon & Natter. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES C. SIVON, PARTNER, BARNETT, SIVON 

& NATTER PC 

Mr. SIVON. Chairman Frank, Congressman Gillmor, and members of the committee, my name is Jim Sivon, and I am a partner 

in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Barnett, Sivon & Natter. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss consumer 

protection issues following the decision in Watters v. Wachovia.

In order to highlight those issues, I have organized my statement 

from the beginning of a consumer credit transaction to the end of 

a transaction. 

At the beginning of a credit transaction, the best protected consumer is an educated consumer. Financial literacy has been the 

focus of a significant amount of attention in recent years, yet more 

needs to be done. 

The solution to this challenge, in my opinion, is to incorporate financial literacy into our public school systems. A few States have 

done this. The Federal Government and the financial services industry should work together to make this opportunity available nationwide. 

The disclosure of key terms and conditions is the next step in the 

credit process. Disclosure is an important consumer safeguard. 

However, in order for disclosures to work properly, they must be 

clear and understandable. 

The Federal banking agencies have started to make use of consumer testing in the development of new model disclosure forms. 

Such testing should continue and disclosures that are unnecessary 

or counterproductive should be eliminated. 

Congress also should resist the temptation to mandate detailed 

disclosure regimes; detailed statutes can result in overly complex 

disclosures. 

After selecting a particular financial product, a consumer is concerned about the protections that apply. We have a national consumer credit system, but all consumers do not enjoy the same level 

of protection. 

The recent problems in the mortgage market illustrate the limitations of the current system. 

The Federal banking agencies have responded to those problems 

with two separate advisories on mortgage lending practices. Those 

advisories, however, apply only to Federal lenders, not to State licensed lenders. While efforts are underway within the States to impose similar requirements, nothing guarantees that all States will 

adopt them. 

As a result, consumers that obtain a loan from a federally regulated lender will receive one level of protection and consumers who 

receive a loan from a State lender receive a different level of protection. This not only deprives consumers of comparable protection 

but allows institutions to engage in regulatory arbitrage based on 

consumer protection standards. 

13

Consumers of financial products should receive the same protections regardless of the type of lender that provides the product or 

the jurisdiction in which the product is delivered. Uniform national 

consumer protection standards would meet this goal. 

Federal preemption is a key part of that approach. However, I 

would agree with Chairman Frank’s opening comments that to 

work properly, such a system does require robust Federal standards. 

Today, national banks and Federal thrifts are subject to a number of consumer protection standards. Yet, we may have reached 

the point where additional safeguards are appropriate. 

Both the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act authorize the Federal banking agencies 

to define and prohibit acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive. 

It now appears that the Federal Reserve Board soon will propose 

revisions to its HOEPA rule to address unfair and deceptive acts 

or practices in the mortgage market. 

I would recommend that any such rule apply to all lenders. Further, I would recommend that any rule based upon the FTC Act be 

issued jointly by the Federal banking agencies in consultation with 

the FTC. Joint rule making would ensure that such a rule is uniform. 

After a consumer acquires a financial product, the consumer naturally expects that product to perform as advertised. Yet, consumers do not always appreciate the legal distinctions between different types of lenders and may not be sure where to turn to assistance. 

Consistent with Congressman Green’s opening comments, I 

would urge the Federal banking agencies to establish a centralized 

system for consumer complaints and referrals under the auspices 

of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. 

Enforcement actions are an ultimate form of consumer protection. Policymakers should seek to balance the use of enforcement 

resources to ensure that consumers are adequately protected. 

During the recent problems in the mortgage market, lenders of 

all types engaged in questionable practices. The institutions that 

have gone bankrupt because of their practices were State licensed 

and supervised. This suggests that State supervisory resources 

were inadequate or not adequately utilized. 

In a natural allocation of supervisory resources, Federal regulators should be responsible for federally chartered lenders and 

State authorities should be responsible for State licensed lenders. 

The final step in the consumer credit process is funding. This is 

not so much an issue for consumers as it is a policy dilemma. Perhaps the best way to address this is to work closely with lenders 

and investors to develop an approach that balances reasonable accountability with continued liquidity. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sivon can be found on page 100 

of the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I will begin, and I appreciate the responses. Mr. 

Plunkett, your whole statement will go into the record, so the list 

14

of the organizations on whose behalf you are testifying will be 

clear. 

I was an original sponsor of the effort to overturn the preemption. Without asking anyone to give up that ultimate goal, I do 

think we need to move forward from where we are. 

I want to focus on two questions: Rule making authority and enforcement authority. They are linked. Let me start with rule making authority. 

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Sivon, I think you both referenced a joint 

rule making authority involving all the bank regulators and the 

FTC. I will tell you what the problem is. 

In the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, we found the 

problem, namely, if you are a consumer who gets your credit report 

and you find on that credit report a negative report about something where you were not in fact at fault, report of a transaction 

where the store had agreed you should not owe them the money, 

or the product was defective, or you were double billed, or whatever, there is literally now no way for you to contest that. Literally, 

no way, except to ask the retailer to say, ‘‘mea culpa’’. They are not 

good at that. 

We mandated in the Act, which I think we passed in 2003, that 

the FTC and the bank regulatory agencies should work together—

the bank regulatory agencies plus the National Credit Union Administration should come together and promulgate a set of procedures whereby consumers could challenge these inaccurate reports. 

We had a hearing on that. What they said was well, we are still 

working on it. Frankly, giving all of those regulatory bodies the 

mandate jointly to come up with rules with nobody having more 

power than anybody else to impose them is the functional equivalent of recreating today’s United States Senate. 

You get a very well meaning and elegant institution incapable of 

action. I must tell you, it is not the fault of any individual. You 

have seven agencies. They are busy agencies. That one does not 

work, to me. 

In this situation, by the way, I am going to be proposing when 

we come back that we give the authority to the Federal Trade 

Commission by itself with a duty to consult with and get comments 

from the other agencies. 

That is on the specific question of the right to contest information in a credit report. Now, I do think we need to spell out more 

authority, I believe, on unfair and deceptive practices. The current 

situation is not good either for the consumers or the regulated institutions. 

One earlier Comptroller had said to me, well, we can do what we 

need to do because we have the mandate to protect safety and 

soundness. I asked for that to be explained. The answer was well, 

if a bank is being unfair to its customers, that could impugn safety 

and soundness. It could. It could also, unfortunately, enhance the 

safety and soundness. Sometimes there is money in not being nice 

to people. 

The notion that any unfair credit practice will cause reputational 

risk is not, unfortunately, the case. That would be self-enforcing. 

15

I think we need to propose some regulatory authority, some rule 

making authority beyond what we have. I do agree that we do not 

want everyone to have his or her own. 

We are talking now about rule writing; enforcement is a separate 

issue. I understand the banking organizations’ concerns if we invite 

the FTC in on enforcement. 

For rule writing, we have two agencies now that have enforcement responsibilities but do not yet have rules spelled out because 

of the Federal Reserve’s refusal to write them. They were the ones 

given the authority—the OCC and the FDIC, both of the major regulators. 

What about from the rule writing now, not the enforcement, 

leave that aside, asking the OCC—not asking—directing the OCC 

and the FDIC to come together with a set of rules and a codicil to 

that, directing also maybe that the OTS join in, so that we have 

one set of rules for the OTS, the FDIC, and the OCC. 

We have an OTS set of rules that they have just promulgated. 

What are your comments on directing the OCC and the FDIC together to come up with a set of rules? 

Let me start with Mr. Sivon. 

Mr. SIVON. If there is an opportunity for the agencies to work together and come up with a common rule so that it is uniform— 

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of opportunity. I am talking 

about what we tell them to do. 

Mr. SIVON. Yes, of course. 

The CHAIRMAN. A common set of rules spelling out unfair and deceptive practices. 

Mr. SIVON. Yes. I think that is what I was endorsing in my comment, that they have a joint rule making authority. I was a little 

confused in some of your comments about the disadvantages of 

joint rule making. 

The CHAIRMAN. Seven is disadvantageous, too. Six. The OTS, the 

OCC, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the National Credit Union 

Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission. That appears 

to go beyond the number of people who will come together and get 

everything done. That is what we did in the FACT Act; two is very 

different than six. 

Mr. SIVON. I was going to note that there certainly are instances 

where the Federal banking agencies have worked cooperatively on 

joint rules in the CRA area, FCRA privacy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that worked well. I agree. Frankly, the Federal Reserve has already demonstrated a reluctance to act in this 

area. I think if you add the others to the Federal Reserve, which 

has already said they do not think there is any need for spelling 

out unfair and deceptive, you just continue to give them the veto. 

When they testified, the Comptroller and the Chairman of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Commission both said that they would 

like these rules spelled out. They think it would be better. The Federal Reserve said ‘‘no.’’ 

I do not think it makes sense to put all three of them in. I think 

the two other agencies, that would make sense. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me try to give you a little perspective from 

where I come from in Grand Rapids, Michigan. We do business in 

16

an area where we compete with every type of chartered depository 

institution. We also compete in the lending business with many 

non-depository lenders. 

It is not good for any lender to be able to be in a situation where 

they can have a competitive advantage over someone else because 

they have less of a burden to be compliant in the way they do business. 

While I am not really from Washington and certainly do not 

know my way around here, even the part about the deals with my 

industry— 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been speaking English here for quite 

some time, Mr. Johnson. I think you will find it far less inaccessible than you appear to believe. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I really believe that given the opportunity for the joint rule making to work, so that there is not a disparity out there on the street between consumer protections is really the right thing. 

Just the same way that our regulators always get our attention 

when we are not being perhaps as proactive as we might be on any 

element of our business, I would suspect that you have the attention of the regulators. 

The CHAIRMAN. That simply is not true. The Federal Reserve has 

had this authority for I do not know how many years, and they just 

recently told us, ‘‘We are not going to use it.’’ Let’s not pretend. In 

Michigan, do they pretend things? You say you are not used to 

Washington. 

Here in Washington, where people have had the authority for 

many years and say, ‘‘We are not going to use it,’’ I take them at 

their word. The Federal Reserve has said they are not going to use 

that authority; they do not think it should be done. 

The OCC and the FDIC say it should. I do agree it would be better to do it jointly. That is what I am talking about. Then the question would be, would you have us rescind the authority of the OTS 

and make them un-do what they did and then join in a joint effort? 

They just went off on their own. It’s statutory. It is not their fault 

that they had that statutory authority. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You are really getting a bit beyond my— 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. I do agree with you that you are 

at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the unregulated, and that is why, in 

some areas, the answer is to take sensible regulation that you are 

under and apply it to them, particularly in subprime. I agree. 

If only regulated depository institutions made mortgage loans, 

we would not now be in the subprime crisis. Regulation has avoided, in a sensible pro-growth way, the abuses that came from the 

absence of regulation. 

Any other comments on the joint OCC/FDIC? 

Mr. PLUNKETT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with your notion that the 

Fed has not acted and we need to look at alternatives and certainly 

creating a little more regulatory competition to allow those two 

agencies to write rules, in my opinion, could not hurt. 

I am speaking for the Consumer Federation here. I am not sure 

that some of the organizations that have signed onto this testimony 

would agree with that notion. 

17

The CHAIRMAN. I want to separate that from FTC enforcement. 

The question is writing the rules. They could be in the same place. 

They could be altogether. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. I have a ‘‘but’’ though, Mr. Chairman. We urge 

concurrent authority, rule writing authority, for the FTC as well, 

simply because the culture at the Agency at least provides for the 

possibility of more independent enforcement. 

At the OCC in particular, I am not sure you have independent 

enforcement, given the factors that I have outlined. 

If they had rule writing authority, given what they have done in 

other areas, I do not think that they would move aggressively to 

protect consumers. We need to look at ways to make the rule writing process more independent. 

Our idea is to bring the FTC in. I am not sure that shifting the 

rule writing authority without changing the culture and particularly at the OCC is going to make— 

The CHAIRMAN. You get to a certain number of institutions and 

you are mandating nothing. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. Here is an idea. In the Military Lending Act, 

which deals with payday loans and other loans to Service members, 

the Department of Defense was made the lead agency in writing 

the rules. They were required to consult with the banking agencies, 

but it was made clear that they were the lead. 

On specific laws, you make a particular agency the lead, hopefully, and then the fall back is if the other agencies do not collaborate, that agency has the rule writing authority. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. I am going to end my questioning 

now. With the FACT Act, we should do that, I believe, with the 

Federal Trade Commission. In the other case, we gave it to the 

Federal Reserve. I just have to say that they are very able and distinguished people at the Federal Reserve, but in choosing between 

making world economic policy and resolving consumer disputes, 

world economic policy seems to win every time in terms of attention. 

The gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. First, for our witness from AARP, you talked about the problems of Federal preemption in a negative way vis-a-vis consumer 

protection. I want your comments on this. 

I think in one area, exactly the opposite is true, and that is in 

the subprime area. The testimony we have had is that there have 

been almost no problems in subprime in the federally regulated 

banks and savings and loans. There have been horrendous problems with mortgage brokers at the State level, lenders regulated by 

the States, and that is where the problems have come. 

I have introduced a bill with Representatives Bachus and Price 

which would mandate that the States go to a license or registration 

program for brokers and originators to provide that level of protection and if they do not, then HUD would step in and do it. 

That would be an area of Federal preemption. I just want to have 

your thoughts on that legislation. 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. I think the licensing issue is a very important 

one, Congressman. We would like to take a look at your legislation. 

I do not think by any means the situation at the State level is perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 038395 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38395.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
18

fect. We have worked very hard at the State level, particularly on 

predatory lending, to improve both the laws and the enforcement 

at that level. 

We definitely would like to take a look at what you are proposing. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Okay. Mr. Sivon, you talked about the need for 

clear and understandable disclosures. I certainly agree with that. 

You now have some consumer testing and focus groups that are 

being used to improve disclosures. 

Is there an area where the disclosures really are understandable 

to the consumer? For example, if anybody has taken out a mortgage recently, and you look at all the disclosures you have there, 

it is so voluminous. I doubt if there is 1 in 10,000 mortgagors who 

read that disclosure. You have huge disclosure that really is meaningless because it is no disclosure. 

There are a lot of people that think we would be a lot better off 

to go to less disclosure and make the disclosure that took place 

meaningful. 

In that context, let me ask you this from an attorney’s point of 

view, is there a litigation risk to the person making the disclosure 

by providing a simple disclosure as opposed to all that complexity, 

because they are going to get sued if they did not have a particular 

sentence in there? 

If you could just comment on that problem, and how to solve it. 

Mr. SIVON. Of course. As a general matter, the policy of having 

disclosures, I think, is a very solid policy and it has worked well. 

You are absolutely right that in certain instances, it seems we have 

reached a point where disclosures can become overly complex and 

confusing. Some rationalization of that and the use of consumer 

testing that the agencies have undertaken, I think, makes a great 

deal of sense. 

On the litigation side, the thing the committee might want to 

consider is as disclosures are being designed, and the agencies are 

given the authority to develop models, that there could be safe harbors for institutions from that type of litigation risk, that if they 

adhere to the particular model, then that litigation risk would not 

arise. 

Mr. GILLMOR. How would you do that? Would you have the regulator or the legislative body set out and say if you disclose ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘B,’’ 

and ‘‘C,’’ then you have a safe harbor? 

Mr. SIVON. It would probably have to be through legislation. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Let me ask Mr. Gonzalez, you talked about Latinos 

being subject to various credit card schemes. Is it any bigger problem for Latinos compared to anybody else who might fall in the 

same social/economic category as a Latino, and if so, why would 

that be? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We have seen that Latinos are more likely to be 

targeted for credit card scams, in part because they are less likely 

to be accessing the mainstream financial institutions that give individuals, even low-income individuals, the opportunity to kind of 

measure whether or not a credit card offer is false. 

If you do not have access to banking services, and you are getting 

credit card offers from what may look like a banking service but 

is not, then you are more likely to fall for these. 

19

They are also targeted for affinity scams, which for example, 

could be something related to a particular community that looks 

like it is an actual credit card but is not a credit card. 

Because of lack of exposure to the financial system, and also lack 

of financial counseling and other issues that could improve financial savvy, they are more likely to be targeted. 

Mr. GILLMOR. One more question. Mr. Gonzalez, you talked 

about while these consumers do not know what they are getting 

into and the need for education, and I agree with you on that, we 

had in the subprime area—I had a conference of lenders, regulators 

and consumer groups from Ohio talk about the subprime problems 

we had there. 

I was surprised that the consensus that came out of the group 

was that the most single most important thing we could do would 

be to have greater education—that those who had counseling did 

not have foreclosures. 

If we agree on the concept that consumer education is good, my 

question to you is, how would you effectively deliver that education 

to consumers? How do you do it? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sure. We have a network of about 70 home ownership counseling community based organizations that provide 

home ownership counseling. In some cases, they counsel people out 

of moving towards home ownership because they are not ready for 

it and are more likely to default. 

In our network, we have fewer defaults because of that. What we 

find to be effective, not just for Latinos, our networks are not just 

Latinos, is one-on-one counseling. Even if you receive the education 

with relation to what are your rights or what you should be looking 

for, without counseling, if you are new to the financial services 

market, including mortgages and credit cards, you still may make 

the wrong choices based on your situation. 

People want to access credit cards because they view it as a way 

to build a credit score. They may make choices that are not the 

best for them because of the situation they are in and counseling 

in the community based organizations that are close to where their 

community is, where they live and with whom they have built 

trust, has been the most effective way to keep people from home 

ownership default. 

We view it as a great opportunity to build on that, to make sure 

that people are not getting into unmanageable debt. 

Mr. GREEN. [presiding] Thank you, sir. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment on Mr. 

Gillmor’s issue of disclosures? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. It is important, what the disclosure says and 

how it is written is very important, but also the context and the 

timing of when it is given is critical. It is not just what it says. 

There is a whole slew of behavioral science that has been done on 

consumer decisionmaking that shows, particularly in these mortgage situations where people are adverse to short term losses, that 

they will go for these loans that promise them that they will not 

have to put a lot of money up front, but in the long term, they are 

bad for them. 

20

We really need to take that into account, as well as the understandability of the disclosure. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you for your comments, sir. 

I did not thank the entire panel when I gave my opening statement earlier. I do want to thank you for coming in and testifying. 

I had the privilege of testifying once before Congress and I remember I prepared for weeks to give about a 5-minute statement. I understand what you do and what you go through. I thank you. 

My issue will be the one of one-stop-shopping. I really would like 

some input from you as to how this can become a reality, if at all 

possible. 

I understand that it will not be a panacea because you have too 

many institutions that you are working with and there are so many 

elements in the equation that it may be difficult to get a handle 

on all of them. 

How can we have one point of contact for the consumer? The consumer is the most important part of all this and we all agree. How 

can we have one point of contact for the consumer so that the consumer can get an issue resolved by the appropriate agency, not necessarily at the point of contact. The point of contact will become the 

genesis of the process. The revelations will be in the multiplicity 

of agencies that will have enforcement authority, that we do not 

plan to eliminate. 

How do we get to the point where we can give the consumer good 

information about the entry point, the alpha of the process, such 

that the omega can be ultimately achieved? 

Who would like to help me with this? 

Mr. PLUNKETT. I will give you some thoughts to start with, if you 

would like. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. I will start left to right, and we 

will hear from everyone, and hopefully my time will not expire. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. It is a good idea, and you put your finger on the 

issue, that the quality of the information that is provided, the advice that is provided, is high. As I just pointed out about the OCC’s 

new Web site, that does not appear to be the case. 

An obvious point here is to make sure that the effort is well-financed. Put the agencies under tight timelines to work together because on many occasions, they have shown an incredible ability to 

take simple tasks and drag them out for years and years. 

Not too tight, of course. You want it well done. They need to have 

specific deadlines they have to meet. 

Third, have a process in place to review the information and advice that is provided. The OCC’s consumer assistance group has 

been heavily criticized for not helping consumers resolve complaints. They say they view themselves as a neutral arbiter. In 

many cases, if you look at the information they provide, they appear to be defending the practices of national banks. 

You need a process in place to make sure that the advice that 

is being provided is actually helping people, and then monitor it 

closely. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. This is an area where we are just 

now beginning to look at how the agencies should be brought toVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 038395 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38395.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
21

gether to ensure there is information that consumers can actually 

use. 

We believe that currently getting the answers to your questions 

or even filing a complaint is a scavenger hunt for consumers, particularly from low-income communities, who can become frustrated 

with the process. 

We are looking into what are the best ways to get there. This is 

a big issue for our community. We will get back to the committee 

when we are able to complete that analysis. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Mr. Gaberlavage? 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. I would agree with the previous comments. 

Also, I would add that our surveys show that the public is really 

not very aware of who to go to, and particularly, Government agencies rank very low, except for State AGs seem to have attention of 

older consumers. 

I think publicizing it has to be a key. Also, possibly working 

through community organizations and making that known to people, particularly in minority communities. 

In a previous job I had at AARP, I ran a campaign to inform people about electronic transfer and direct deposit. It is very important 

to work through community organizations, and possibly I wonder 

whether State agencies could be included in this in some way, too. 

The proposal on the form that the agencies are working on now 

is good in the sense that it will provide uniform data that can be 

analyzed. That is very important. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know we are running out of time here, and I 

have more than 6 seconds worth to say. 

I would like to tell you a little bit about how we handle this sort 

of thing in our bank because it might give us a key to how we can 

do it in a broader area. 

What we do when there is a complaint or even a question that 

is posed in person or on the phone by one of our customers to one 

of our bankers, the key to resolving that question or getting the 

right answer to that question or resolving that complaint is for that 

first point of contact to take ownership of this problem. 

In many instances, we are able to just physically walk that person over to the other banker who has the answer to their question 

or who can help them work through their complaint. 

I recognize that we cannot physically walk all of the complainants around the country to the right person, but that is something 

that works for us with the 120-some people we have working for 

us. 

I think the key is for that first point of contact to take ownership 

and for them to know and to help that customer determine who the 

next place is that they should be going to with a high degree of accuracy. 

One of the most frustrating things any of us can experience is 

when we are on a help line some place and we have to talk to five 

or six people before we get to the right one. 

If we can have that initial point of contact take ownership of that 

problem and figuratively walk the complainant to the right place, 

and that as has been suggested, that is going to take the participation of all the players for that to work, but I think the OCC and 

22

their Web site has been a good start, but it is just that, a good 

start. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr. 

Sivon. What I will do is yield. Will you allow me 10 seconds or so 

for Mr. Sivon? 

Mr. MCHENRY. Of course. 

Mr. SIVON. Thank you very much. I would like to respond. I 

think we should acknowledge that the Federal banking agencies 

have taken some positive steps in this area. They all have consumer complaint procedures and systems in place. 

The OCC and OTS also have entered into some agreements with 

the States on information sharing on complaints. 

I do think it should be taken to another level. The mechanism 

that I would recommend that the committee explore is the Federal 

Financial Institutions Examination Council. 

All the Federal banking agencies sit on that body and last year, 

Congress amended the FFIEC to include a representative of State 

banking authorities. There you have an entity in which the Federal 

banking authorities and the States can sit down and ideally collectively come up with the type of system that you are talking about 

that could be an one stop shop for consumers. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. At this time, I recognize Mr. McHenry 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I thank my good friend. This has been a very informative panel. I want to start where I think we have some consensus here across this panel. In some way, shape, or form, each 

of your written testimony mentions this. 

Mr. Plunkett begins actually in what you said before the committee, much less what you have added in your testimony, you said 

the process is not transparent. When offering credit, consumers are 

not aware of all the details upon which they are signing this document, this very complex legal document. 

I agree with you. I very much agree with you that generally 

speaking, whether it is A to Z in lending, in particular, mortgage 

lending right now, the process is not transparent. 

Should it be at least part of our focus to ensure that the regulations are written in a clear English style so that perhaps on one 

page, people can understand the key components of what they are 

signing rather than a multi-page document written in fine print to 

actually beyond that, have a supplement to it that says clearly and 

concisely what the key terms are for the transaction they are undertaking? 

If we could just start with Mr. Plunkett, if you could just briefly 

comment on that. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. Sure. I actually agree with you that better disclosure is helpful. When I was talking about the process, I was talking about the regulatory process, the focus on supervision over enforcement. 

It is a secretive process. Consumers have a hard time getting a 

handle on it, what the problems are with the regulatory institutions that are being supervised. 

Mr. MCHENRY. You would concur that transparency in the actual 

lending process and the transaction process for the consumer needs 

to be clearer? 

23

Mr. PLUNKETT. Necessary. You are right. You cannot provide too 

much information. It is not sufficient, however, if products that are 

deceptive or abusive are still available, it really does not help the 

consumer much if you tell them they are going to be over charged 

or pay a fee that is not reasonable. You also need to have some protections in place. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Beyond protections, try to get an area of consensus. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. Better disclosure. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. We would agree that there needs to be more 

transparency, obviously. One focus might be in places where there 

has been trouble with people, where the lack of transparency has 

led to ongoing debt, such as the double billing for purchases made 

abroad, or people not understanding the minimum payments. 

It would be very helpful to have plain English descriptions of the 

terms. They should be clearly headed so people understand them. 

They should not be scattered throughout the disclosure document. 

Also, there should be a focus on things that could get consumers 

in trouble. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you. 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. We would agree that the disclosure needs to 

be much improved. One of our litigators says that they think that 

the disclosure should be written on bright pink paper. I do not 

know what color you like. I think one of the problems, I agree with 

Travis, that it is the practices. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you. 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. And the timing. Timing of when they are 

given. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I think clearly effective disclosure, which is 

what we are talking about here, and which Mr. Gillmor mentioned 

as well, is something that we should really all agree on. Getting 

to there and what exactly that means is perhaps more complex. 

We would be more than happy to work with the committee and 

the regulators to get there. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Sivon? 

Mr. SIVON. Same answer. I think disclosure is one of the most 

important consumer safeguards, so having effective and timely, I 

agree with the comment on proper timing, that it is important. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I want to go beyond this. There is a discussion 

about the FTC being a better protector of the consumer. 

Mr. Johnson, are you a state regulated bank or a federally regulated bank? 

Mr. JOHNSON. State regulated. 

Mr. MCHENRY. How many separate regulators oversee your 

bank? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are a State non-member bank, which means 

we are regulated by the Office of Financial and Insurance Services 

in the State of Michigan, part of a Department of Commerce, and 

the FDIC is our Federal bank regulator. 

Mr. MCHENRY. For the discussion here about the FTC being the 

better regulator, what is fascinating to me is you have, through the 

OCC, roughly 1,800 full time bank examiners out in the instituVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 038395 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38395.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
24

tions monitoring, some on a daily basis, others on a regular basis—

basically 1,800 bank examiners that examine 1,850 banks. 

What is fascinating to me is that you have an almost one-to-one 

ratio between examiners and institutions. You have some very 

large institutions that may have a number of examiners in them. 

What many of you are testifying, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Plunkett and 

Mr. Sivon, in particular, is that the FTC would be the better protector of consumers. I think what is important in this discussion 

is what is the FTC capable of doing? 

This committee does not have oversight over the FTC. FTC employs 1,074 people; the OCC employs 1,800 examiners. 

It is a very different notion. OCC employs somewhere over 3,000 

people in its entirety. The FTC only employs roughly 1,000 people. 

What you want to do is add all these new institutions in an area 

in which the FTC does not have any existing knowledge of, and say 

they are a better protector of the consumer. 

I cannot quite understand why you believe the FTC would actually take on minute details within financial institutions when we 

all know the FTC largely focuses on high profile cases that actually 

can have a ripple effect across the economy. 

Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Sivon, I would love to have your 

response. Mr. Sivon is anxious. 

Mr. SIVON. Just because I want to disassociate myself. I did not 

testify to that effect. I do not agree that they should be active in 

an enforcement role against nationally chartered banks or federally 

chartered thrifts. If I gave that impression, it was not my intent. 

Mr. MCHENRY. My apologies. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. This is our recommendation to deal with the underlying problem I mentioned, which is a pretty clearly established 

lack of independence, in particular, at the OCC, from the regulated 

institutions. 

You have two issues in bringing the Federal Trade Commission 

in. One is unfair and deceptive acts and practices’ authority, which 

I think they would have existing staffing to deal with, and clearly, 

experience to deal with. 

It is not true that they do not have anything to do with banking 

regulation. Right now, they are charged with regulating some aspects of banking laws related to non-banking entities. For instance, 

credit cards offered by retail establishments and not through 

banks. Well, actually through banks, but not under the auspices of 

those banks. 

Already you have some split authority between the banking regulators and the FTC, and this is our best recommendation in how 

to bring a more independent, certainly not perfect, but more independent agency into the process. 

They would need additional funding if concurrent rule making 

authority was granted to bring on additional staff. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Do you have any cost estimates? 

Mr. PLUNKETT. No. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We actually did not include this recommendation 

in our testimony. We have not actually done the analysis on which 

would be the better regulating agency. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you. 

25

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Sivon, both of you mentioned financial literacy as perhaps a way to deal with the subprime and predatory 

lending practices. One of you suggested we may want to try to create in schools a financial literacy program. 

While I agree partially with that, what would you say to this? 

The most unproductive schools tend to be in the areas where 

subprime and predatory lenders are most ravenous. Do you get the 

point I am making? You are saying let’s put it in schools. The 

schools that do not work seem to be in the same areas. 

Mr. SIVON. I would not profess to have any expertise in the area 

of education. It just struck me in preparing for this testimony and 

as I thought about financial literacy that the place to achieve it 

best would be in the school system. 

It is a complex issue to drive it down to the school system given 

the nature of the way schools are governed today in our State 

based structure. 

I do think it makes a great deal of sense and would solve a lot 

of this problem. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I agree. You make a very good point about—

I would stretch the point a little further to say that in most school 

systems, public or private, the teachers who are there, while they 

are very well-trained teachers, are not in and of themselves prepared to do the financial literacy education piece today. 

That is something that I think the industry and the regulators 

can help with. I was talking before the hearing started with Congressman Green about a program that our bank participates in as 

well as many, many ABA member banks, and a program that Mr. 

Green participated in back in his district. 

It is called National Teach Children to Save Day. We go into 

schools and start the process of here is what you do to save. Here 

is what the difference between a want and a need is. This is at 

very low elementary levels all the way up. The methods differ for 

grade, as you might expect. 

Beyond the schools, we have an awful lot of adults out there who 

are not in the school system any more who also need education. 

Mr. CLEAVER. That is what I wanted to deal with now, and 

maybe Mr. Plunkett and Mr. Gonzalez, although any of you can respond to this, one of my points of intolerance is people speeding 

through school zones. The signs are always clear. You are supposed 

to slow down when you go through a school zone because these are 

vulnerable pedestrians. 

Do we all agree? 

[Witnesses nodding affirmatively.] 

Mr. CLEAVER. When we find that there are specific areas that are 

targeted, Mr. Gonzalez has already mentioned it for Latinos, but 

it is also African Americans and to a lesser degree lower income 

whites. Those are the areas that are targeted by the predatory 

lenders. 

Would you support a slowing down with regard to—these are 

vulnerable borrowers. That you slow down when you are going 

through those areas? In other words, when we see that an area is 

being targeted, what are the negatives in requiring that before a 

26

loan is made in these areas, that you have to do A, B and C, you 

have to go through some kind of educational process? 

I am not talking about 2 or 3 years. I am talking about to make 

sure they understand what is going on. 

If we slow down to protect vulnerable kids, why do we not slow 

down to protect vulnerable borrowers? 

Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We would agree that we have to approach 

subprime lending with caution. On the other hand, we need to 

make sure that people who are in these areas that are ready to 

enter the market and to build their credit and to enter home ownership have a process to do that. 

Through our home ownership counseling network, which puts 

people through a rigorous robust process, which for some people it 

means counseling them out of making this choice, we have slowed 

down the process, but not with the intention of keeping people out 

of home ownership, but with the intention of keeping them in home 

ownership and making sure they keep their homes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. What if the lending institutions had to do it as 

well? La Raza does it as one of its many programs, which I am familiar with. I think it is one of the better things going. You cannot 

touch everyone because everybody is not going to make themselves 

available. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Right. Details matter with that. I would be concerned that some bigger lenders might decide not to enter that. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Are you familiar with the Voting Rights Act? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. What triggers the Federal involvement with regard 

to the Voting Rights Act is if the voter registration drops beneath 

a certain level, then Federal registrars are sent into the area. I 

think this is a problem significant enough that if we see that loans 

drop beneath a certain level, I think that in itself ought to attract 

Federal involvement. 

Mr. GABERLAVAGE. I think literacy is important but I think this 

problem is beyond literacy. In many of the low-income and minority 

communities, you have older persons who try to get a loan because 

they need some cash flow to pay some bills and things, and not 

only did they not get the money, but they are losing their home, 

their primary asset. What happens to them in retirement? Most of 

these people do not have pensions. What happens to them in their 

old age? 

We need some action on some of the practices that are occurring 

in these communities and stop, slow down through better regulation and stopping some of these practices that are preying on people, particularly for the older population. 

The financial system is very good at marketing. It is sophisticated. It is pinpoint, it is accurate. They can tell you, oh, your CD 

is expiring or it is maturing, and then there have been cases where 

banks have marketed specifically to older persons whose CDs were 

expiring and they marketed variable annuities to them. 

Fortunately, one of our regulators in Massachusetts, I think, 

stopped this practice from occurring. These were inappropriate investments. 

27

It is very good at that, but when the consumer has a problem, 

particularly in all of these areas, then the response is uneven. The 

authority of the agencies that are charged with protecting the consumer is uneven. It should be that no matter what door a consumer goes through, whether it is a bank, a credit union, or a 

thrift, whatever it is, that the protection should be equivalent and 

it should be effective. 

I think that is what we should aim for, and that would really 

be—it is great to have literacy, but starting in elementary school 

or something is not going to solve this problem of whole communities losing their equity. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Mr. PLUNKETT. Congressman, when looking at particular problems in say, minority communities, some of the legislative proposals that your committee has looked at and that a number of 

members have co-sponsored, do deal with specific practices that 

have a particularly negative effect in those communities, such as 

lending without adequate consideration of the ability to repay, 

which has been shown in minority neighborhoods in particular to 

be a serious problem, because many people are getting loans at 

high interest rates when they could qualify for better terms. 

That is one way to approach the problem as well. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will just add that the problem of people getting 

old without regard to their ability to pay, I believe, has been greatly enabled by securitization. 

Your ability to make a loan without being concerned with someone’s ability to pay is enhanced if you are not the person they have 

to pay. I think that is what securitization has done. 

The gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, that was a good lead into what 

I wanted to say. First, I am sorry that we do not have more members here. We have had a lot of hearings on this subject, and this 

has been the best panel I think we have had period, just because 

you are all on the ground. You are worrying about both kind of the 

individual banker piece of this to the individual consumer. 

I just want to thank you all for your testimony today. 

The chairman hit on something, and Mr. Johnson, you were sort 

of talking about this. There is this huge distance now between the 

borrower and the banker in many cases. 

You do not have the personal banker any more and that relationship has sort of evaporated in many instances where you call me 

up and you say, Mr. Perlmutter, you know, are you sure you really 

want to borrow this money, or this is happening with your account. 

You do not have that relationship as much as you used to. 

It is not that I want to go back 50 years, but I think that is just 

something we have to deal with as Members of Congress. 

Some of the comments about the over disclosure piece, and Representative Gillmor was asking about this. There are so many products available that if you try to disclose about all these different 

products, you have a book to read. 

We have two policies that I think we have to consider, and we 

may have gone too far with them. It is not a question of compliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:48 Nov 08, 2007 Jkt 038395 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38395.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
28

ance. I think virtually all the banks and the credit card companies 

and everybody else are complying. 

The policy issue is have we pushed the goal of home ownership 

so far that we allow one percent mortgages to get you into your 

house and it fails, so it is a policy issue on home ownership, and 

a policy issue on credit. 

Have we extended credit so far with every little product possible 

and with some Wharton MBA in the background coming up with 

a new product, but also a new fee attached to that product, that 

people cannot keep up. 

I just think the materials you all provided, your testimony today, 

was excellent. I am not sure what the answer is. I can tell you the 

polling we have done and the people that I have talked to, it is 

Iraq, immigration, health care and credit cards. That is it. 

The credit cards, they are mad just because the fees just continue to mount up generally. 

I do not mean just to give you a speech here. The issue is that 

the bank or the lending institution has two things on its side. It 

has time and education. If you have the education, you usually do 

not have the time to worry about the fees that you are getting 

charged. If you have the time, you generally do not have the education. 

I have said this in other instances. You all have helped me kind 

of put my arms around this subject. It is sort of a distance between 

the banker and the borrower. It is this over disclosure because 

there is so many products, and the question is do we, as a Congress, want to start limiting the extension of credit, limiting home 

ownership or not. 

If we do not, then we are going to continue to have these kinds 

of things, and that may be the price you pay. 

I do not have any questions. I just wanted to vent. 

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate 

you on putting this panel together. They are the best I have heard 

on this subject. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. I am reminded to include in 

the record, if there is no objection, a statement entitled, ‘‘Improving 

Federal Consumer Protection’’ from the National Association of Realtors. 

There being no objection, it is so ordered. 

I know this encountered some skepticism but sometimes congressional committees have hearings because we want to know things. 

That is not usually why we have hearings. Sometimes, it is. Today 

was a good example. 

I thank all the witnesses. This was thoughtful testimony from 

people engaged with the issue. I hope you feel the time was well 

spent. 

When we return from the recess in September, we will be legislating, I believe, in some of these areas. There are three. The narrowest issue, which is the subprime one, where I believe we need 

some legislation. 

There is the broader question of consumer protection after preemption, and there is also the again narrow question of creating a 

consumer right to contest bad credit information. 

29

This one, it seems to be the consumer groups and the financial 

institutions are somewhat aligned in their interest because what 

happens is the typical dispute here is between the consumer and 

the point of sale, and the financial institution is caught in the middle. The entity that did the sale is telling you they owe us the 

money and the consumer says, I do not owe you the money, and 

you are the collectors. 

What we want to put in place is a mechanism to cut you out of 

that loop and let the debate happen where it should happen. 

At any rate, I agree with the gentleman from Colorado. This has 

been a very useful hearing. I thank all the witnesses. We will be 

in considerable touch. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(31)

A P P E N D I X

July 25, 2007

32


38395.001
33


38395.002
34


38395.003
35


38395.004
36


38395.005
37


38395.006
38


38395.007
39


38395.008
40


38395.009
41


38395.010
42


38395.011
43


38395.012
44


38395.013
45


38395.014
46


38395.015
47


38395.016
48


38395.017
49


38395.018
50


38395.019
51


38395.020
52


38395.021
53


38395.022
54


38395.023
55


38395.024
56


38395.025
57


38395.026
58


38395.027
59


38395.028
60


38395.029
61


38395.030
62


38395.031
63


38395.032
64


38395.033
65


38395.034
66


38395.035
67


38395.036
68


38395.037
69


38395.038
70


38395.039
71


38395.040
72


38395.041
73


38395.042
74


38395.043
75


38395.044
76


38395.045
77


38395.046
78


38395.047
79


38395.048
80


38395.049
81


38395.050
82


38395.051
83


38395.052
84


38395.053
85


38395.054
86


38395.055
87


38395.056
88


38395.057
89


38395.058
90


38395.059
91


38395.060
92


38395.061
93


38395.062
94


38395.063
95


38395.064
96


38395.065
97


38395.066
98


38395.067
99


38395.068
100


38395.069
101


38395.070
102


38395.071
103


38395.072
104


38395.073
105


38395.074
106


38395.075
107


38395.076
108


38395.077
109


38395.078
110


38395.079
111


38395.080
112


38395.081
113


38395.082
114


38395.083
115


38395.084
116


38395.085
117


38395.086
118


38395.087