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

40–436 PDF 2008

H.R. 4332, THE FINANCIAL CONSUMER

HOTLINE ACT OF 2007: PROVIDING

CONSUMERS WITH EASY ACCESS TO THE

APPROPRIATE BANKING REGULATOR

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND CONSUMER CREDIT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 12, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–84

(

(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 A. 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 

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 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

4PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

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 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

December 12, 2007 ........................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

December 12, 2007 ........................................................................................... 33

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007

Braunstein, Sandra F., Director, Consumer and Community Affairs, Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ..................................................... 6

Kenney Jeannine, Senior Policy Analyst, Consumers Union ............................... 23

McConnell, Cassandra, Director, Consumer and Community Affairs, Office 

of Thrift Supervision ............................................................................................ 9

Mierzwinski, Edmund, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group ........................................................................................................ 25

Neiman, Richard H., Superintendent of Banks, New York State Banking 

Department, on behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and 

the New York State Banking Department ......................................................... 13

Skiles, J. Leonard, Executive Director, National Credit Union Administration 11

Thompson, Sandra L., Director, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation .................................................... 8

Walsh, John G., Chief of Staff and Public Affairs, Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency ..................................................................................................... 4

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Braunstein, Sandra F. ...................................................................................... 34

Kenney Jeannine .............................................................................................. 42

McConnell, Cassandra ..................................................................................... 53

Mierzwinski, Edmund ...................................................................................... 61

Neiman, Richard H. .......................................................................................... 69

Skiles, J. Leonard ............................................................................................. 78

Thompson, Sandra L. ....................................................................................... 87

Walsh, John G. ................................................................................................. 100

(1)

H.R. 4332, THE FINANCIAL CONSUMER 

HOTLINE ACT OF 2007: PROVIDING 

CONSUMERS WITH EASY ACCESS TO THE 

APPROPRIATE BANKING REGULATOR 

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND CONSUMER CREDIT, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Maloney, Waters, McCarthy, 

Green, Hodes, Klein; Biggert and Royce. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. This hearing of the Subcommittee of Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit will come to order. The 

hearing will focus on H.R. 4332, the Financial Consumer Hotline 

Act of 2007. The bill establishes a single toll free telephone number 

that consumers can call if they have a problem with their bank, 

and want to speak to the appropriate banking regulator. 

I would like to welcome all of the witnesses, and thank them for 

their time, their testimony, and for being here today. 

For our first panel, we will hear from representatives of: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the National Credit Union Administration; and 

the Office of Thrift Supervision. We will also hear from Superintendent Richard Neiman—a very special welcome to him from my 

home State of New York—who is here on behalf of the Conference 

of State Bank Supervisors. 

A second panel will include witnesses from consumer groups. 

This legislation builds on a suggestion that Comptroller Dugan 

put forward in a hearing before this committee back in June, to 

provide consumers one-stop service with their banking regulatory 

issues. Given that depository institutions in the United States can 

be regulated by any of five Federal regulators or a State regulator, 

consumers often don’t know what entity to call if they have a problem. 

Apparently, customers often end up calling their attorney general, or the FDIC, even if that is not the right regulator, because 

their bank window or Web site states that the institution is FDICinsured. 

2

We hope and expect this legislation will be cost-efficient as well 

as consumer-friendly. Right now, as our witnesses will explain, 

each of the agencies has a Web site, provides a phone number for 

consumers to call with questions, and has a staff to follow up on 

complaints or inquiries. 

The single hotline will help route calls to each agency more 

quickly, and encourage frustrated consumers to call and get answers to their questions. The establishment of a single, toll free 

number could also assist the banking regulators in compiling consumer complaints and inquiries, so that better information would 

be available about problems or issues that cut across institutions 

that the various agencies supervise. 

Congressional legislation and oversight would also be better informed by such centralized statistics. Also, the establishment of a 

single, toll free number could help raise the profile of banking regulators as consumer resources. This committee has called on the 

Federal bank regulators to provide more consumer assistance in a 

variety of contexts throughout this Congress, and this is a simple 

way to get this started. 

The legislation directs the Federal financial institutions’ examination council to set up the hotline. The council is an existing 

interagency body established by statute to prescribe uniform principles and standards for financial institutions, and to otherwise coordinate regulatory activity among the Federal banking regulators. 

The Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and OTS are all members of the council. The legislation also directs the council to work 

with State banking regulators to integrate them into the hotline 

service. And Superintendent Neiman of the New York State Banking Department is here on behalf of New York and the Conference 

of State Bank Supervisors to address how that will be implemented. 

He has also come forward with a number of suggestions to improve the legislation, and I thank him for that. The Act also requires the council to report to Congress 6 months after enactment 

on the Agency’s efforts to establish a public interagency Web site, 

likewise directing and referring consumer complaints and inquiries 

received on the Internet concerning any financial institution to the 

appropriate Federal or State financial institution regulatory service. 

I should note that not only the OCC, but the council as a whole 

has taken some steps in this direction on its own initiative, with 

an eye to both cutting costs and improving service to consumers. 

This past fall, the council formed a working group to study ways 

in which the separate consumer complaint handling systems of 

each regulator could be streamlined and leveraged to better and 

more efficiently serve customers. The council is considering hiring 

an independent consultant to evaluate the existing centers and 

make recommendations on how that might be consolidated. 

This legislation provides a statutory mandate that supports and 

guides these efforts in a framework for congressional oversight. It 

is an important step forward. It is simple to implement, but very 

necessary. I very much look forward to the testimony, and I recognize Mrs. Biggert, the ranking member, for 5 minutes. 

3

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

thank you for calling today’s hearing. In these challenging times, 

it’s important that consumers be able to quickly and easily get in 

touch with State and Federal banking regulators to provide comments or to make complaints about their financial institutions. 

I think, given the complexity of our banking system and the various regulators that work in this area, consumers may not know 

where to turn when they have a dispute with their institutions. 

The chairwoman has introduced legislation to create a single hotline to try to alleviate any consumer confusion. I think this idea is 

worthy of consideration, and I am interested to learn more about 

it today. 

It is my understanding that regulators already have an informal 

system in place to redirect misplaced consumer complaints, a system that they are constantly trying to improve. For example, when 

the OCC receives a complaint from a consumer about a thrift that 

should have been directed to the OTS, it is my understanding that 

these informal agreements exist to make every reasonable effort to 

redirect the complaint to the overseer of that thrift. 

I hope to hear more about this informal network, and how the 

regulators ensure that no consumer complaint falls through the 

cracks. Consumers should not be punished for misplaced complaints. 

I am also interested to hear what our witnesses think about such 

a hotline, and how that would work. It is—in my view, any hotline 

should be, number one, easy for consumers to register complaints 

or inquiries, and number two, simple for the regulators to obtain 

and evaluate the meaningful information provided. 

I look forward to the testimony today and to working with the 

chairwoman to ensure that consumer complaints are heard and 

that regulators are responsive. I yield back. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Green for 5 minutes, and welcome him up to the top panel, 

since not a lot of people are here. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank the 

ranking member, as well. And I would like to associate myself with 

the comments made by each of you. 

I would also like to thank the persons who are here to testify 

today. I have had an opportunity to meet several of you, and I am 

very much impressed with the outstanding list of witnesses that we 

have. I, too, am of the opinion that a hotline can be of great benefit 

to consumers, especially given the amount of concern that is currently in the marketplace with reference to banking, financial institutions, and some of the home mortgage concerns. 

I think that, while this may not address all of the consumer complaints and concerns, I think it is a good means by which we can 

have some semblance of one-stop shopping, such that persons will 

have a line that they can depend on to acquire some intelligence 

about concerns that they may raise. 

I think that one of the things that will make it efficacious is having access to the statistical information. I think that can drive a 

process, knowing that the information is available, and knowing 

that others will have an opportunity to evaluate the program itself. 

4

So, I am honored to associate myself with the comments of the 

chairwoman and the ranking member and I would endorse the 

chairwoman’s proposal and would be honored to be a cosponsor of 

the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Congressman Royce, for 3 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to 

commend the chairwoman for holding this hearing. 

We are here today to discuss legislation which is going to establish a single telephone number that consumers with complaints or 

inquiries can call, anywhere around the country, and thereby locate 

the appropriate Federal or State regulator. I am sure that this is 

going to be a useful tool for consumers trying to file a complaint, 

or consumers who have an inquiry about something, and thus will 

be able to get in touch on the banking issue that they need to discuss. 

Now, I have coauthored the National Insurance Act with my colleague, Representative Melissa Bean, which would create an optional Federal charter for insurance. And some of those opposed to 

that legislation argue that, even if it creates greater market efficiencies, the creation of an OFC might cause confusion among insurance customers trying to determine the company’s regulator. 

Well, in reviewing the Financial Consumer Hotline Act, which is 

going to be a Federal act, I believe this endeavor for the insurance 

sector would be beneficial, should a Federal regulator be created in 

the future. Any meritorious effort to increase consumer disclosure 

and shorten the distance between consumers and the appropriate 

regulator should be encouraged. 

So, I encourage the chairwoman, and I would like to thank the 

regulators here for their work on this issue, and I look forward to 

hearing about the progress made in the future. Thank you again, 

Madam Chairwoman, for the bill and for the hearing. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. And, without objection, all 

members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. I 

welcome all of the witnesses. 

First, we have Mr. John Walsh, Chief of Staff and Public Affairs, 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and then we will go right 

down the line. Thank you. You are recognized for 5 minutes. And 

thank you for coming forward with the idea in the first place. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. WALSH, CHIEF OF STAFF AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY 

Mr. WALSH. Subcommittee Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Biggert, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Comptroller John Dugan and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss H.R. 4332, which 

would direct the Federal banking agencies to establish a single toll 

free number to help consumers reach the right banking agency for 

assistance with a complaint or inquiry. 

Banks come in a variety of sizes, with both State and Federal 

charters, which offers choice and diversity to consumers. However, 

it can also present a complex maze for them to navigate when they 

have a problem and need help from their bank. 

5

When direct contact with the bank does not resolve an issue, figuring out where to turn next may be very challenging. The consumer with a complaint or inquiry must sort through dozens of 

phone numbers, Web sites, and addresses for the various State and 

Federal agencies. Few bank regulators are household names, and 

most are unfamiliar to consumers. 

The result is that consumers with a problem often reach the 

wrong regulator. Misdirected calls represent a significant portion of 

the 70,000 total cases opened by the OCC each year. This year, the 

OCC has received 11,000 referrals of misdirected complaints and 

inquiries from other Federal and State regulators, and has referred 

10,000 misdirected complaints and inquiries to other regulators. 

This volume suggests that a large percentage of people who have 

questions or concerns about their financial service provider do not 

know where to turn for help. The OCC believes that this burden 

should not fall upon the consumer, and supports the goals of this 

legislation to develop simpler means for consumers to find their 

way to us, by phone or Internet, and for banking agencies to expedite the routing of misdirected consumer complaints. 

Development of a single toll free number, in coordination with 

the Federal financial institution’s examination council would make 

it easier for consumers to register a complaint with the appropriate 

banking regulator. It would eliminate the burden of searching for 

the right agency, the frustration of being referred from one agency 

to another, and most delays that result from misdirected calls. 

A single toll free number would also help banking agencies compile and act on consumer complaints more efficiently. Eliminating 

the burden associated with rerouting misdirected calls would make 

existing agency complaint handling processes more efficient, and 

free up resources for use in responding to consumer concerns. 

A second objective of the bill on which Federal regulators would 

be required to report back to Congress in 6 months is establishment of a public interagency Web site for directing and referring 

Internet consumer complaints and inquiries, and a system to expedite the prompt, effective rerouting of any misdirected consumer 

complaint or inquiry documents. 

The OCC is currently working with other members of the FFIEC 

to study options in this area. This study will examine how we 

might leverage existing agency resources to simplify the process for 

identifying the appropriate regulator for consumers, and improve 

the complaint filing and resolution process. 

The council approved this study at its December 4th meeting, 

and we look forward to a report and recommendations by the end 

of 2008. 

The OCC itself has taken the initiative to reduce obstacles that 

consumers may face in registering complaints, and to improve the 

service they receive when they reach our customer assistance 

group, or CAG. The OCC has expanded the CAG’s capabilities 

through a number of investments and upgrades in the last several 

years, most recently launching a new consumer Web site, 

HelpWithMyBank.gov. 

The OCC is developing a Web-based complaint referral system to 

reduce inefficiencies involved with forwarding documents associated with misdirected complaints. And the system will transmit 

6

complaint-related documents via the Web to authorized users, 

while ensuring information security and privacy. 

The OCC is also working with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and with State regulators on a number of initiatives to 

expedite the referral of misdirected questions and complaints. In 

November 2006, the OCC and CSBS agreed on a model memorandum of understanding to improve referrals and information 

sharing regarding misdirected consumer complaints, and provide 

needed assurance of confidentiality for sharing that information. To 

date, 30 States and Puerto Rico have entered into agreements with 

the OCC. 

In conclusion, the OCC fully supports the goals of H.R. 4332, creation of a single toll free number and call routing system, and a 

companion routing system for Internet-based inquiries and complaints. Improvements in these areas will promote timely assistance for consumers of bank services. 

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify and I appreciate Chairwoman Maloney’s leadership in this important area. 

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

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I now recognize Sandra Braunstein, Director of Consumer and 

Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Thank you for joining us once again. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA F. BRAUNSTEIN, DIRECTOR OF CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. Thank you. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking 

Member Biggert, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the recently introduced Financial Consumer Hotline Act of 2007. 

In addition to its responsibilities for rule writing and enforcing 

many Federal consumer financial protection laws, the Federal Reserve’s Division of Consumer and Community Affairs administers 

a national consumer complaint and inquiry program. 

The proposed legislation would amend the FFIEC Act by requiring the Federal regulatory agencies to establish a single telephone 

number that consumers with complaints and inquiries concerning 

financial institutions or issues could call and be routed to the appropriate Federal supervisory agency or State bank supervisor for 

assistance. 

The Federal Reserve concurs with the intent of the proposed bill, 

and strongly supports the current efforts by the regulatory agencies 

to improve the consumer’s experience with getting complaints involving banking services and transactions addressed promptly and 

accurately. 

However, given that the regulatory agencies are collaborating 

and cooperating on how to facilitate the consumer complaint handling and resolution process in ways that are consistent with the 

proposed bill, and the considerable progress being made already on 

both an interagency basis, as well as through our own efforts, legisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 040436 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\40436.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
7

lation does not appear to be needed to ensure the continued momentum. 

Additionally, it is important that the agencies maintain flexibility so that they may benefit from recommendations that will result from the current agency initiatives and future technological 

advances. 

The regulatory agencies have been coordinating on consumer 

complaint processing since the 1970’s. For example, the agencies 

have had procedures in place for decades to promptly refer misdirected consumer telephone calls and misdirected consumer complaints and inquiries to the appropriate Federal and State regulator. 

Recently, the agencies have started using new technology to 

speed up and improve the referral process, which has significantly 

reduced the paper flow between the regulatory agencies. 

Moreover, the agencies meet periodically to share complaint data, 

and to discuss emerging issues identified through the complaint 

process. To build upon the efforts of the agencies, in September, 

the FFIEC formed an interagency working group to identify ways 

to collectively improve the agencies’ consumer complaint programs, 

and to make those programs even more consumer friendly. 

This group advanced several promising initiatives that will 

produce results similar to those envisioned by the proposed legislation. Additionally, it was recommended that a third party vendor 

be engaged to address the ideas for improvement, and to explore 

the feasibility of pursuing the initiatives related to leveraging the 

agencies’ resources. 

Earlier this month, the FFIEC approved the working group’s recommendations, and has begun the process of hiring a vendor. We 

believe the vendor’s work will provide the agencies with the insight 

needed to develop a comprehensive strategy to further enhance the 

consumer complaint process. 

Consistent with the intent of the proposed legislation, and the 

Federal Reserve’s longstanding commitment to consumer protection, we have recently announced enhancements to our own consumer complaint handling procedures. 

On November 19th, we launched Federal Reserve Consumer 

Help, a new centralized resource that consolidates and streamlines 

the Federal Reserve’s consumer complaint and inquiry program. 

This resource includes a toll free number and centralized Web site 

for easy consumer access. Trained customer service professionals 

are available to answer questions and assist with a wide range of 

issues relating to financial products and services and consumer 

protection laws. 

Simply put, it serves as a one-stop complaint and inquiry site 

where consumers can go to get help from the Federal Reserve, or 

be directed to the appropriate regulator or agency. 

Consumers do not have to know which Federal bank regulator 

supervises the financial institution that they are concerned about 

in order to file a complaint or inquiry. Our customer service representatives query a national database in order to determine the 

appropriate regulator responsible for the institution in question. 

Misdirected telephone calls are transferred directly to the correct 

agency, and misdirected written or electronic correspondence is forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 040436 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\40436.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
8

warded. And for agencies with the capability, these complaints and 

inquiries are passed on electronically. 

Through our work with the other agencies, and through our own 

program, the Federal Reserve remains strongly committed to ensuring that consumer issues and inquiries are handled promptly, 

courteously, and thoroughly, and that consumers have access to an 

effective and efficient means for resolving complaints. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Braunstein can be found on page 

34 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. 

Next, Sandra L. Thompson, Director of the Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA L. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 

OF SUPERVISION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL 

DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

Ms. THOMPSON. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Biggert, 

and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today on behalf of the FDIC. 

The FDIC recognizes the importance of providing consumers a 

convenient and timely way to get help with complaints and questions about a financial institution or other banking matters. From 

a supervisory perspective, consumer complaints and inquiries often 

provide our examiners insight into problems in an institution and 

developing industry issues. 

Currently, consumers can contact the FDIC through our Web 

site, as well as through our toll free phone number, 1–877–ASK–

FDIC, which is answered by our call center staff. The call center 

has received over 133,000 calls this year. 

In addition to consumer issues and concerns, the call center staff 

handles questions about deposit insurance and bank resolutions. 

For example, last year’s deposit insurance reform led to many inquiries about the increase in coverage for retirement accounts. And, 

when a bank fails, the FDIC provides institution-specific information for customers about the insured status of their deposits. 

When the call center receives a consumer complaint about an 

FDIC-supervised institution, or an inquiry that requires subject 

matter expertise, the caller is connected to the FDIC’s consumer response center. As part of the investigation of complaints, response 

center staff informs consumers of their rights under Federal consumer protection laws, and they review the bank’s actions to assess 

its compliance with the law. 

In order to help consumers determine where to send complaints, 

the FDIC Web site features a search tool called Bank Find. By entering the name of a bank, a consumer can immediately access information on the bank, including financial data, insured status, 

and its primary Federal regulator. 

The consumer can also link directly to the Web sites of the other 

bank regulatory agencies. The FDIC Web site also offers an online 

complaint form that consumers may use to file a complaint or inquiry. 

We are also working with our colleagues at the other Federal and 

State banking agencies to streamline the process for referring comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 040436 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\40436.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
9

plaints between agencies. A little over half of the complaints and 

inquiries received by the FDIC this year related to institutions supervised by other Federal and State regulators, and we promptly 

and directly referred those consumers to the appropriate regulator. 

Last week, the agencies that are members of the FFIEC agreed 

to explore the feasibility and technical requirements of additional 

improvements to the interagency referral process. We want to ensure that future enhancements to the agencies’ processes are both 

technically feasible and cost effective. 

The FDIC supports the intent of H.R. 4332, the Financial Consumer Hotline Act of 2007. The bill is consistent with the approaches that the Federal banking regulators have already committed to study through the FFIEC. Although conceptually simple, 

the creation of a single toll free number and Web site for interagency activities raises a number of issues and technical challenges. We must ensure that any improvements that the agencies 

undertake actually can achieve efficiencies that will benefit consumers. 

And because consumer correspondence, often by necessity, contains confidential, personally identifiable information, such as bank 

account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other financial 

data, it is imperative that any new information sharing system has 

sufficient controls to protect the consumer’s privacy and confidentiality. 

Because our consumer contact system addresses several issues 

that are unique to the FDIC, we are recommending a clarification 

that the bill’s requirement of a single toll free number and interagency Web site are intended to supplement, rather than replace, 

existing systems. 

Customers with questions about deposit insurance issues or 

issues regarding a failed bank should be able to continue to contact 

the FDIC for assistance directly, as they do now. 

In conclusion, the FDIC supports systems to ensure that consumers can get the answers they need on a convenient and timely 

basis. We look forward to working with the Congress and our fellow regulators to maintain and develop systems that achieve this 

goal. 

This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to address 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson can be found on page 

87 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Cassandra McConnell, Director, Consumer and Community 

Affairs, Office of Thrift Supervision. 

STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA McCONNELL, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION 

Ms. MCCONNELL. Good morning Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking 

Member Biggert, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to present the views of the OTS on Chairwoman 

Maloney’s bill, ‘‘The Financial Consumer Hotline Act,’’ to establish 

a single toll free telephone number for consumers to call if they 

have a complaint or inquiry regarding a regulated institution. 

10

The consumer complaint process is an important link between 

the institution’s regulator and its customers. It enables agencies to 

assist consumers in addressing problems at regulated institutions, 

and it helps agencies identify potential areas of risk at an institution for follow-up during an examination, as well as industry 

trends that warrant closer scrutiny. 

It also informs the agencies on areas where consumer education 

may be beneficial. A strong consumer complaint program is a valuable regulatory tool that strengthens the examination function. 

At the OTS, consumer complaints have revealed important information about weaknesses in internal controls, violation of Federal 

consumer protection laws, and potential unfair acts and practices. 

We share the concerns of the Chair, that consumers be able easily to identify the appropriate place to file a complaint or inquiry 

about a regulated institution. This not only helps the consumer, it 

helps us do our job more effectively. 

Establishing a single toll free consumer hotline is long overdue. 

We applaud the leadership of the Chair on this issue. The OTS is 

committed to fair access to financial services for all consumers, and 

fair treatment of customers at the institutions we regulate. OTS 

staff works directly with consumers to address their questions and 

inquiries, to investigate allegations and complaints, and to ensure 

that thrifts are in compliance with all applicable consumer protection laws and regulations. 

We use consumer complaint data to identify higher risk practices 

at institutions for follow-up by our examiners during regularly 

scheduled examinations. When warranted, we initiate specialized 

targeted investigation of particular institutions, based on information provided to the agency by consumers. 

All of this, of course, is predicated on the timely receipt of consumer complaints on the institutions we regulate. When this fails 

to occur, consumers become frustrated and may be harmed by the 

inability of a regulator to address their concerns. 

The FFIEC recently adopted a proposal to identify ways to improve the interagency consumer complaint process. This effort is 

aimed at simplifying the process for identifying appropriate regulators, creating easier complaint filing procedures, and improving 

the complaint filing procedure. 

It is intended to identify opportunities for enhancing the consumer experience, and leveraging the FFIEC agency resources to 

ensure that consumers reach the appropriate regulator. 

The OTS is working closely with the FFIEC to implement the 

initiatives set forth in the Financial Consumer Hotline Act, as well 

as additional items, to improve consumers’ access and confidence in 

our financial system. The proposals outlined in the bill are among 

the highest priority for the FFIEC. 

Given the work currently being conducted by the FFIEC, our 

only concern is the extent that the legislation could be viewed as 

limiting our ability to craft consumer solutions that it does not currently address, or delaying development of an FFIEC-sponsored 

proposal because of uncertainties surrounding a final framework of 

the legislation. 

The Financial Consumer Hotline Act sets forth a number of 

sound consumer protection initiatives that should be incorporated 

11

in our banking system. These will improve the accessibility and 

confidence of consumers in our system, by providing a clear mechanism for filing consumer complaints. 

Given that the FFIEC is working hard to address these issues 

and other similar initiatives, we ask that you consider allowing the 

FFIEC to move forward on its work unfettered by legislative overlay. While we understand and appreciate your desire to address 

these issues expeditiously, we believe the FFIEC process will do 

that, while minimizing disruption to existing agency consumer protection programs. 

Thank you for your leadership on this issue, Madam Chairwoman, and for the time and effort of all the members of the subcommittee. I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McConnell can be found on page 

53 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Leonard Skiles, executive director, National Credit Union 

Administration. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF J. LEONARD SKILES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SKILES. Thank you Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member 

Biggert, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Credit Union Administration regarding the proposal to improve the process by which consumers have their problems addressed and resolved. 

NCUA commends you for identifying this important consumer 

issue, and for formulating a well thought-out and sensible legislative approach. This proposal is consistent with NCUA’s longstanding position that every effort should be taken to safeguard 

consumers. 

We particularly note your interest in eliminating confusion about 

which regulators should be responding to the consumer. I think it 

is safe to say that we in Washington are somewhat familiar with 

the alphabet soup of Federal regulatory bodies, but it is unfair to 

expect average Americans to know which government agency can 

best help them. Frankly, they just want the problem fixed. And 

this proposal would improve the process to do just that. 

As you are aware, credit unions differ from other financial institutions in several respects. These differences are important, and 

are relevant to how complaints are addressed. 

First, they are not-for-profit financial cooperatives owned by 

their members. That member ownership carries with it certain 

rights, including the right of a member to be informed about decisions made by their credit union. 

Second, Congress has recognized the unique structure of Federal 

credit unions, and mandated, by statute, that each have a supervisory committee. This committee, comprised of three to five credit 

union members, is responsible for independent oversight of the 

board of directors, and to advocate the best interest of the members. 

In practice, members, because of their relationship with their 

credit unions and NCUA, have viewed the supervisory committee 

as a first responder for credit union members who seek redress. 

12

When a complaint is received, we encourage direct contact with a 

credit union. We believe this is consistent with the cooperative 

structure of credit unions. 

At the initial stage of the complaint process, we contact the supervisory committee, and direct a thorough review of the complaint. While that review normally resolves the issue in a timely 

manner, in case the member is not satisfied with the outcome, or 

the supervisory committee’s explanation suggests noncompliance 

with laws or regulations, NCUA has the authority to intervene. Importantly, at all stages, NCUA is actively engaged and oversees the 

process, to ensure that the member’s rights are protected. 

I should also mention that NCUA has taken steps to ensure consumers know who to contact if they do have an inquiry or complaint. This information is available on loan denial forms, posters, 

statements, and a centralized 800 number posted prominently on 

the NCUA Web site, through which a consumer can register complaints or make inquiries. This line averages about 120 calls per 

month, and is a focal point of the consumer contact with the agency. 

In short, NCUA encourages and facilitates consumer contact, has 

a structure in place to investigate complaints and provide answers, 

and, through our experience in regulating and supervising credit 

unions, we have a high degree of confidence that the system is 

working to the benefit of the credit union member. 

Turning to the proposed legislation, NCUA supports this initiative. Given the multitude of regulators, the distinction between 

Federal and State regulatory responsibility, and the increasing 

complexity of financial institution ownership structures, it provides 

another avenue for consumers to better understand the efficacy and 

procedures in place to protect their interests. 

Since a centralized call routing system would be a widely advertised process, it could, however, have an unintended result for credit union members. It is our experience that credit union members 

do not appear to be confronted with at least some of this government labyrinth. The name ‘‘credit union’’ provides a strong initial 

indicator of where a consumer should direct a contact, and NCUA 

believes it is important to preserve this distinction. 

So, while NCUA would be pleased to participate in any new consumer complaint structure, we want to emphasize the importance 

of a separate ability to assist consumers who are members of credit 

unions. The established NCUA method of dealing with consumer 

input, where the decentralized national system of regional offices 

can respond quickly, combined with the statutorily mandated supervisory committee structure overseen by NCUA, is a process that 

we believe Congress should want to preserve. 

The member-centric focus by credit unions is an element that 

NCUA not only recognizes, but attempts to foster. A credit union 

is expected to treat its members in a fair, beneficial, and, above all, 

legal manner. When that does not occur, NCUA proactively and aggressively polices the process, and makes certain that the members’ 

rights are protected. 

It is our view that the current system for credit unions is working. We believe it can continue to work in the proposed consumer 

complaint structure. And NCUA looks forward to opportunities to 

13

collaborate with Congress and the FFIEC, as we take steps to assist consumers. 

Congress has recognized a need for improvement, and NCUA 

wants to be a part of the solution of ensuring that consumers do 

not, as earlier stated, fall through the cracks. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skiles can be found on page 78 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I would like to give a very special welcome to the superintendent 

of banks from New York, Superintendent Neiman. He is here today 

testifying on behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, 

not just New York, but the whole conference of all State banks in 

our country. I thank you, and I welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD H. NEIMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF 

BANKS, NEW YORK STATE BANKING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CONFERENCE OF STATE BANK SUPERVISORS 

AND THE NEW YORK STATE BANKING DEPARTMENT 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

Biggert, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and the New 

York Banking Department, I really appreciate this opportunity to 

speak with you today. I personally also want to commend Chairwoman Maloney for her efforts on this very important issue. 

I am pleased to share our perspective on the proposal to establish a national call number and centralized intake for consumer inquiries directed to Federal regulators. States are on the front lines, 

and have provided many innovations with respect to handling of 

consumer complaints, including Web-based and consumer satisfaction surveys. 

We believe that the creation of a national system, one that also 

routes calls to the respective State agencies, when appropriate, is 

much needed. 

For those of you who are familiar with New York City’s general 

hotline information line, I envision this functioning as a national 

311 for financial complaints. This issue has been on the Department’s agenda for some time. My predecessor, Diana Taylor, as superintendent of banks, also promoted this 311 concept before I 

joined the Department. And I concur that the time is right to put 

the idea into practice. 

Ideally, over time, if successful, this could be expanded to include 

a wider range of financial services beyond just those regulated by 

Federal bank regulators and State regulators, with the possible inclusion of the FTC. 

Consumers with a variety of concerns, whether related to credit 

cards, payment billing, or funds availability would benefit from an 

enhanced interagency information sharing. And in the context of 

the present turmoil in the mortgage market, a streamlined approach for handling consumer inquiries would be especially useful 

in outreach to borrowers facing a mortgage hardship. 

The goal is to connect with these homeowners early in the delinquency process, before their credit history is damaged, or they lose 

their homes to foreclosure. With our complex, financial services 

14

system, however, consumers who want to be proactive may be confused, and understandably so, when trying to identify the correct 

government agency to contact. 

A consumer should not need to know whether their financial institution is a thrift, a savings bank, or a commercial bank, or a 

State-chartered institution or a national-chartered institution, or a 

sub of a bank or a sub of a holding company in order to receive 

assistance. 

And with many citizens unaware of the chartering authority for 

their financial institutions, State agencies regularly receive local 

inquiries related to institutions that are federally supervised. 

Troubled consumers tend to look locally first, when seeking help, 

and the statistics bear this out. In 2006, the New York Banking 

Department referred more than 1,300 complaints to the Federal 

regulators, well over half of the volume of the approximately 2,200 

complaints we received. The figures for the year-to-date are virtually the same. 

It is critical, however, that any national hotline linking the Federal regulatory agencies include the capability to refer consumer inquiries back to the States. Resolution of the underlying issues that 

prompted the complaint often requires assistance at the local level. 

This is especially true in the case of mortgage lending, which, due 

to the nature of the collateral, is unavoidably local. 

Therefore, I am pleased that the current proposal provides for 

this referral to the States. In reviewing the draft of The Financial 

Consumer Hotline Act of 2007, we are encouraged that it represents a positive development toward the type of integrated system that is needed. 

In my remaining time, I would like to offer a few suggestions to 

further enhance the current proposal. First, while the Federal-toState referral mechanism is addressed in the proposed legislation, 

the reverse ability, to refer State to Federal, is not directly addressed in the current draft. We would suggest making this a twoway process more explicit, as there could be significant flow of referrals in this direction. 

Troubled consumers tend to look locally first when seeking help. 

And with many citizens unaware of the chartering authority for 

their financial institution, State agencies regularly receive local inquiries related to institutions that are federally supervised. 

Second, the database connected to a centralized intake system 

would be a source of vital statistics about trends and consumer 

complaints. This information could also be used to identify institutions generating a high volume of complaints that may warrant a 

target exam, or other form of enhanced supervision, or to identify 

the need for regulatory or legislative changes. 

The same system could also be used to track case resolution status and response times. We recommend expanding the proposed 

legislation to mandate the FFIEC to produce such monitoring reports to maximize the value of the system. 

And, third, consideration should be given to the development of 

model forms and intake processes, to ensure that all participating 

agencies collect consistent and sufficient information. CSBS has developed a model form and is preparing best practices for agencies 

in the operation of their call centers. A copy of the form and a list 

15

of the standards that CSBS is developing for its members is included in my written submission for your reference. 

The States welcome the opportunity to share our perspective on 

the approaches to complaint case management that we have tried, 

and have found to be effective. The New York State Banking Department was the first State regulator to enter into a complaint 

sharing agreement with the OCC, and we offer our positive experience with this partnership in support of the concept of a nationwide hotline. 

I thank you for your time this morning, and for inclusion of the 

States’ perspective. I would be glad to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman can be found on page 69 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you very much. I would like to 

ask Mr. Walsh, the statistics on consumers who call the wrong 

number are certainly impressive, the numbers that you gave. And 

the FDIC alone, it seems that about a third to half of all the people 

who call a Federal bank regulator call the wrong one. 

I would say that it seems logical that if each agency spends a 

third of its time sending calls to the other agencies, that a great 

deal of consumer frustration and needless cost and time to the 

agency occurs. Would you say that these statistics are strong support for this bill? 

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairwoman, certainly the numbers are support for the contention that a lot of calls wind up in the wrong 

places. Of course, it’s worth bearing in mind that receiving a call 

that needs to be redirected does not take the time of handling a 

case, or sorting through a complex issue. 

So, it—the numbers are too large to be acceptable, but they 

wouldn’t represent a third of the time that our consumer assistance 

people spend. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. You also mentioned the need for a public 

relations campaign to raise consumer awareness of the hotline. 

What sort of campaign do you envision, and do you believe that it 

is required to be part of this bill? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, the notion there was that if there—if FFIEC, 

for example, decides to create some of these centralized functions, 

that the natural part of including that process would be to publicize the creation of a single number, or a single Web site, whatever it might be, and that process of making consumers aware of 

a single Web site would, of course, increase awareness, generally, 

of the service that is available. 

So, we would expect that to be part of any plan to roll out any 

new system that would be agreed to. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. Superintendent Neiman, I 

liked your idea to add a mandate to collect data on consumer calls 

to the centralized hotline. What should such a mandate include? 

And I liked, also, your idea of a centralized form, to have uniformity in the system. But what would you see in this mandate, 

and what are the key measures that should be part of it, for us as 

regulators, to monitor? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Certainly trends in the nature of the complaints. 

Are they folks in a particular area? Within credit cards? And even 

16

within credit cards, is there a particular segment of complaints 

around a particular issue? 

As some of the other regulators mentioned, that type of information is extremely helpful in preparing for examinations, as well as 

follow-up supervisory reviews at those institutions. 

I think it also is important to identify those institutions that do 

have a higher rate of complaints in comparison to their peers. So 

I think it is extremely useful information for individual regulators 

taken separately, but also taken as a group, to identify trends and 

areas requiring further review, further supervision, or possibly 

areas that require regulatory change, if these areas of concern are 

expansive. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. It would also be very helpful for congressional oversight. 

You mentioned in your testimony that sharing information with 

the OCC was pioneered by New York State. Are other States following your lead? Do the other States have these types of programs? 

Mr. NEIMAN. There are certainly a number of States. I think the 

specific number now—I bet John has it—is 30. Thirty States have 

now signed on to that memo of understanding confidentiality agreement. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Okay, and how could the establishment 

of a single toll free number help raise the profile of banking regulators as a consumer resource for registering complaints and inquiries. 

Mr. NEIMAN. Well, I agree that a consistent marketing approach 

would be an important element of identifying for consumers a single national hotline to call for financial complaints. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. And I would like to ask—some of the 

panelists raised concerns that this legislation may interfere with 

initiatives that they already have in place. That was certainly not 

the intent. It was more of referring to the appropriate place, saving 

consumers time, helping monitor trends, and so forth. 

Are there any specific examples in the legislation where it, in 

any way, interferes with what is happening in your own agency’s 

regulation and oversight? Anyone? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. Well, I think our concerns are that mandating 

certain kinds of practices, like the 1–800 number and other things 

in the legislation, could end up conflicting with whatever we learn 

from the third-party vendor that we hire. 

We all have—we recognize the intentions of the legislation, and 

I think we are all on the same page, that we need to do whatever 

we can to improve the complaint process for consumers. But we, 

the agencies, just decided to hire a third-party vendor to get some 

professional advice about what would improve things for consumers. 

And suppose the recommendations that come out of that study 

somehow conflict with what is in the legislation, but we’re locked 

in by the legislation? I think that is one of our concerns. 

We also have concerns, in terms of legislation locking us in in the 

future, in terms of being able to take advantage of technological advances in the future. Who knows, 10 years from now, what kinds 

of operations people will use to file complaints? 

17

And so, we want to be able to remain—we just want to be able 

to have some flexibility, in terms of the changes and the enhancements that we do make to the systems. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Well, just to be clear, the legislation does 

not relieve any agency of the responsibility to respond to consumer 

complaints, it only takes away the significant burden of helping 

consumers find the right agency. And I would say that is a valuable resource. And, obviously, legislation is always updated to respond to new technology. 

I now call upon my good friend and colleague, the ranking member on this committee, Congresswoman Biggert, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My line of questioning is somewhat similar. 

But I think that we, a couple of years ago, passed legislation that 

was to deal with financial literacy in education, and asked the various agencies to work together so that there wasn’t duplication, and 

so that the agencies would know what the others were doing. 

But my goal was always to do no harm. And I think when we 

look at legislation like this, it still is to do no harm. And when I 

hear the word ‘‘mandate,’’ I get a little concerned. But maybe you 

can relieve me of that concern. 

For example, do you see any other unintended consequences arising from the proposed legislation? 

And another question I have is, how is this paid for? Ms. 

Braunstein, you talked about the Federal Reserve having a hotline 

now, and directing it to other agencies, and the FDIC, too. Of 

course, I would assume that is something that comes out of your 

pocket. But with this bill, I don’t know where that comes from. 

Would all the agencies have to get together? Would this just be 

something else that comes out of the Federal Government? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. I would think we would all have to chip in to 

enact whatever is done in the legislation. 

But the current system, as you said, comes out of our budget. 

Our system, as do the other agency systems come out of their budgets. 

Also, I do want to clarify something that Congresswoman 

Maloney raised, and also you just raised, is that, frankly, the consumers now don’t have to know which agency to go to, because we 

have established some pretty robust systems among us to get them 

to the right place. 

So, I know if they call us, and it’s a misdirected call, we get them 

to the right place very quickly. I am not sure that’s any different 

than if they call a 1–800 number and they still will have to be 

transferred to the right place. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. How do they get— 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. I believe that is going to get very— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. How do they get to you, though, right now, with 

the hotline? How do they know to call you? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. Well, we have advertised the hotline. I would 

assume there is information in some of their financial institutions. 

And some of the consumers we find just—they kind of take a shot 

in the dark. And they know—the Federal Reserve is known, so we 

get a call. Or the FDIC is known, so people pick up the phone and 

call them. 

18

And, like I say, if they did call the wrong place, or they wrote 

to the wrong place, we get it to the right place very quickly. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Ms. Thompson, would you like to comment on 

that? 

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. Certainly, the FDIC supports the intent of 

the legislation, and we would just like to make a recommendation 

that there is a clarification in the bill that a single toll free number 

is intended to supplement, and not replace, existing processes. 

The FDIC logo is prominently displayed on all insured depository 

institutions, and we do get lots of calls. Apart from consumer complaints and inquiries, we get lots of calls about deposit insurance, 

such as, ‘‘Am I covered if a bank fails, or is having problem?’’ People want to know what their deposit insurance status is. So we just 

want to make sure that this supplements, and does not replace. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Are you concerned about the possibility that the 

legislation could slow down the projects that you are currently 

working on to improve customer service? 

Ms. THOMPSON. Well, we are going to move forward with the 

FFIEC program, and we are supportive of anything that makes a 

process easier for consumers to understand. But we would like to 

work out the details. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What would be the—I do not know if there would 

be liability, but say somebody does call the hotline, and is misdirected to the wrong place, and the consumer never does kind of 

find the right place to—for their complaint, or—and then they are 

not helped. 

Is there any issue on that, or any issue of privacy? 

Ms. THOMPSON. There are issues regarding privacy, and also information security. When people call, they usually call with a specific question about their specific bank account, so they have to provide identifying information. 

So, we would be very concerned that any system—whether it was 

through the Web or through a telephone—made sure that a customer’s private information was secure, and that the information 

was safe. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Anybody—Mr. Walsh? 

Mr. WALSH. Yes, if I could. I think, in this case, since the legislation—since the idea here is focused on a facing-the-world new piece 

of technology, if you will, or a new place that people can go to that 

is unified in nature, and its basic purpose is to route calls to the 

right end point, it has not been—I think it was agreed by the council when they met that, as Ms. Thompson has mentioned, the idea 

in the project that we are looking at is to add something to the 

process that would handle this routing issue, not to change or 

interfere with other processes. 

The project itself is funded through a cooperation within the 

council, and any eventual 1–800 number, whatever else, would 

similarly be shared cost among the agencies, and that is quite routine within the activities of the council. 

So—and as to questions of privacy or protection of the information of the consumer, that problem, that issue, exists no matter 

how that intake occurs. So, I think as long as we’re talking here 

about simpler and more assured routing, I don’t see that any substantial problems arise. 

19

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. I would like to just add that in the Act 

establishing the council, as Mr. Walsh says, everyone would chip 

in, unless they agree otherwise, so as to maintain maximum flexibility. 

And certainly, the intent is not in any way to supplant the wonderful activities that many of you are doing already in your agencies; it is just to provide a more simplified routing system to save 

consumers time and help them receive the information that they 

need to have more quickly. 

I now recognize Mr. Green for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, again, I 

thank you for this most valuable piece of legislation. 

Let us start with identifying a term. There is a French term, 

‘‘voir dire.’’ Lawyers are familiar with it. Some of you may not be 

familiar with the term. It is a term that means, ‘‘to speak the 

truth,’’ and we use this in trials, so as to examine large numbers 

of persons en masse when we are asking our questions. So, I am 

going to ask questions of you en masse, and hopefully I will get 

through this a little bit faster. 

If you agree that we need one number so that all consumers can 

call one number and be properly routed to the correct agency, if 

you agree that one number is needed that will not preempt other 

numbers, would you kindly raise your hand? 

[Show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that everyone 

agrees that one number that does not preempt other numbers is 

needed. 

If you support this bill, as currently drafted, would you kindly 

raise your hand? 

[Show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. All right. Now, if you did not raise your hand 

then, would you raise your hand now? 

[Show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. All right. So, let the record reflect that all but one 

of the witnesses seems to support the bill as currently drafted. 

If the bill can be tweaked such that you can find a means by 

which it is acceptable and supported—this would apply to Ms. 

Braunstein—would you conclude that it can be tweaked, such that 

you can support it? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. Yes. And I do want to say we support the intent of the bill, absolutely, 100 percent. We just are not sure that 

it is necessary to sustain momentum, and that we are already moving in the direction— 

Mr. GREEN. Well, now— 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. —that the bill is— 

Mr. GREEN. Let me just ask you this, Ms. Braunstein. My initial 

question was, do you think we need one number? And your response to the initial question was ‘‘yes.’’ 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. Well, we—that is why we hired a consultant, 

was to move in that direction. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Now, in Texas— 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. I support that we are— 

20

Mr. GREEN. So you are getting ready now to do something, you 

are starting to do something. In Texas, we call that, ‘‘fixing to do.’’ 

And I appreciate what you are fixing to do, but I don’t see how that 

would preclude us from doing what we are fixing to do. 

Why would what you want to do preempt in some way what we 

are trying to do? Or should it preempt what we are trying to do? 

Why should it? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. I guess I do not want to presuppose what the 

conclusions of our consultant will be. 

Mr. GREEN. Let us assume— 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. And so I cannot predict— 

Mr. GREEN. Let us assume that your consultant tells you to do 

whatever you can imagine. Would your consultant say to you that 

we don’t need that single number, do you think? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. I don’t know that. I would think not, that it 

would not be a problem, which is why I raised my hand about the 

800 number. But I don’t know what the consultant will or will not 

say. I don’t think we can predict that. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Will the gentleman— 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. But we are hiring somebody. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Will the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. GREEN. Always to the Chair, absolutely. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. The planned study apparently will not 

yield a report until the end of 2008. And don’t you think that consumers should get the benefits of one-stop shopping and information sooner than that? The chairwoman yields back. 

Mr. GREEN. I would gladly want to hear the lady’s response to 

the question. 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. Well, yes. I agree with anything that will improve the process for consumers. 

Mr. GREEN. How is it, Ms. Braunstein, that you would conclude 

that we need the number, but we really do not need the number 

if the number impacts my operation. Let me retract that. 

The number has no impact on what you are doing. You continue 

to do what you are doing. You continue to publish your number. 

You continue to be effective in doing what you are doing. Now, why 

would this number become a problem? 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. It is not. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. One more thing. On the question of privacy—

and, Mr. Walsh, you addressed this, but I just want to go back to 

it—did you not say, sir, that the same question exists, regardless 

of what number we have? Is this correct? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, we would be—we are concerned, we do deal 

very carefully with protection of privacy of any case that is brought 

to us by whatever means, and that would be true whether it came 

through a referral through an 800 number or— 

Mr. GREEN. So this doesn’t present some peculiar set of circumstances that we don’t already have to cope with? 

Mr. WALSH. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. My final question is this: Do you each now 

have a number for consumers to call? If you do, raise your hand. 

[Show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. All right. You all have a number. So now, can you 

agree that if you all have a number, if one number can get the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 040436 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\40436.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
21

sumer to each of your numbers, can you agree that would be beneficial? If so, would you raise your hand? 

[Show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Let the record reflect that all persons agreed. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you for your questioning. I now 

recognize Mr. Hodes for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for 

offering this legislation. 

I noted in the testimony of the OCC that there are 70,000 total 

cases opened each year. Of those, what is the current inventory in 

active cases? How quickly are your cases turning over? 

Mr. WALSH. Within that number, there are about 40,000 that 

are, in fact, inquiries. They are the kind of questions that can be 

answered relatively expeditiously. 

And about 28,000, in the most recent year, became what we call 

actual complaints that were opened, that then have to be processed. And the goal, with those complaints, is to complete them 

within 60 days. We have—I am not sure at this moment of the 

backlog. There is always a kind of a time trail behind that. 

Our staff has actually been doing Saturday work to work at that 

backlog, because the numbers have been up a bit, although not as 

much as one might expect, given some of the problems taking place 

out in the credit markets. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you. I appreciate the importance that the regulators who are testifying here today place on handling consumer 

complaints, and the efforts that you are making, sort of interagency, to work together towards the goal of efficient handling and 

directing of the kinds of complaints we are dealing with. 

Are there any statistics that tell us how many total consumer 

complaints, among all the groups of regulators that are here today, 

that we are seeing on an annual basis now? Do we know what that 

number is? 

Mr. WALSH. We certainly know individually. I have not consulted 

with the others to add them together, but we can certainly provide 

that number. 

Mr. HODES. So, for instance, that piece of information is not 

something that, so far, regulators have gotten together to talk 

about yet. Is that correct? 

Ms. THOMPSON. We do get together periodically. In fact, we get 

together quite often. 

A couple of years ago, the FDIC sponsored a conference where we 

talked about these issues. This year it was at the OCC. Next time 

it is at the Federal Reserve. We do speak frequently. 

But, to your point, there is no mechanism. We would all have to 

get together and bring our numbers. There is no central repository 

of information for that data. 

Mr. HODES. So, would you agree that it is possible that this legislation, and the creation of this number, would facilitate that kind 

of data sharing? 

Ms. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. HODES. Ms. Braunstein, you said an interesting thing during 

your oral testimony. In answer to a question about what was available to consumers, you said that you assume there is some inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 040436 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\40436.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
22

mation in their financial institution telling consumers who to reach 

and how to reach them. 

The use of the word ‘‘assumed’’ to me was interesting, because 

I am trying to think back—I go into my bank quite frequently—

about what is displayed, and how I know about where to go if I 

have a complaint. And I am not the most observant person in the 

world, but I cannot think of any prominent display in my financial 

institutions, the ones I use regularly, that say, ‘‘If you have a problem, here is where to go.’’ 

And so, what strikes me in listening to the testimony, and reading the testimony that all of you have presented, is that the good 

news is that, in some way, each of the folks here have good access 

for consumers’ complaints. Everybody has an 800 or an 888 number, and everybody is trying to do something. That is the good 

news. 

The bad news is that everybody has a different 800 number, or 

888 number, and everybody is trying to do something. And it 

strikes me that, both in terms of data and the ability to facilitate 

sharing, as well as being able to provide one-stop shopping for consumers, the number is a good idea. 

I confess I have not read the legislation in detail, so I don’t know 

whether this is in there. Would you find that a requirement that 

there be a prominent display in the covered financial institutions 

of the 800 number—assuming that the legislation goes through and 

there is an 800 number—that there be a prominent display in each 

financial institution that says, ‘‘Here is your 800 number. If you 

have a problem, here is where to call,’’ would be a good idea? I will 

take it from any one of you. 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. I think that is an excellent idea. 

Mr. HODES. Anybody have a problem with it? Anybody— 

Mr. NEIMAN. I don’t have a problem. I think it is very important. 

And, in fact, even more important with respect to operating subsidiaries of institutions. 

So, if you have a mortgage subsidiary that is a mortgage subsidiary of a Federal bank, those States would not have any jurisdiction, and that complaint should be directed to a banking regulator. 

If it is a subsidiary of a holding company, and the mortgage subsidiary is regulated by the State, it should be directed to the State 

supervisors. 

So, a mandated number, a national number, whether it be prominent in a statement or a brochure or a Web site of that service provider, would be extremely helpful. 

Mr. HODES. Okay. I am actually thinking about some kind of 

poster that is right there, where people are dealing with it, where 

they cannot miss it. That kind of thing, that can direct to State or 

Federal, or whoever it ought to go to, but the consumer now knows 

there is one place to call if you have a problem. 

Ms. BRAUNSTEIN. A poster in the lobby is an excellent idea, but 

a lot of people don’t go into their banks anymore, so you might also 

think of other means— 

Mr. HODES. Sure. Understood. Great. Thank you. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you very much. 

23

Chairwoman MALONEY. I thank my colleagues for their questions, and I would like to note that all of the witnesses’ testimony, 

their written testimony, will be made a part of the hearing record. 

And I would like to note that members who may not have been 

able to be here—it is a busy week—will have an additional opportunity to ask questions of this panel. They may submit them in 

writing and without objection, the hearing record will remain open 

for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

I thank you very much for your time and for your excellent testimony today. Thank you for being here, and we will go to the next 

panel. 

I now recognize and welcome Jeannine Kenney, the senior policy 

analyst of the Consumers Union, and Edmund Mierzwinski, the 

consumer program director of U.S. Public Interest Research Group. 

Thank you both for being here. 

First, Ms. Kenney, the senior policy analyst of Consumers Union. 

STATEMENT OF JEANNINE KENNEY SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

CONSUMERS UNION 

Ms. KENNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of 

the subcommittee. On behalf of Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America, we appreciate this opportunity to 

talk about the significant barriers that consumers face when they 

simply want to complain about their bank. 

Assuming consumers even know they have the right to complain 

in the first place, it is understandable that they have such difficulty in knowing where and how to complain. 

Consider what consumers must understand to know where to 

complain. They must know that there is a difference between a national bank and a State chartered bank, and that there is an OCC, 

and that it regulates national banks. They must know that the national bank operating subsidiaries—which may not call themselves 

banks—are regulated by the OCC, as well. They must know that 

the Fed supervises State-chartered banks that are members of the 

Reserve system, but that the FDIC supervises State-chartered 

banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve system. 

They must know that there is a difference between a bank and 

a savings and loan, that a savings bank is a thrift, and that the 

OTS regulates them. And they must know that credit unions can 

be State- or federally-chartered, and that there is an NCUA. 

This sounds ridiculous, and it is. To most consumers, a bank is 

a bank is a bank. Regardless of how and by whom it is regulated, 

they need to know how to complain. And when they have a problem, it should be easy for them to do so. Right now, it is difficult 

for all but the most persistent consumer to determine where, how, 

and to whom they should complain. And faced with a dizzying 

array of options, consumers may simply give up. 

A single consumer toll free complaint hotline provided for in your 

legislation, Madam Chairwoman, The Financial Consumer Hotline 

Act, is an excellent first step in rectifying the inherent difficulties 

created by what is a fragmented and Byzantine regulatory system, 

and we are pleased to offer our support for it. 

24

We also applaud the legislation’s directive that the agencies report back to Congress on their efforts to establish a single interagency Web site for the routing of complaints, and are pleased that 

the agencies are working together to look for improvements. 

But to be truly effective, a complaint system must do the following: It must be easy for consumers to access and use; it must 

be effective for the individual consumer; and it must provide transparent and meaningful results to the Congress, to the public, and 

to the regulators. 

To that end, we would argue that the agencies should establish 

a seamless, integrated complaint system on the front-end—not just 

a referral site or a toll-free number—with a consistent complaint 

procedure, a single, easy-to-understand complaint form, a single 

snail-mail and e-mail address, and a single fax number. 

So long as the agencies maintain their own stovepipe Web pages, 

the confusion will simply not end. The agencies should work out 

the difficulties and complexities on the back-end, and those complexities should remain hidden to consumers. 

In addition, both formal and informal complaints should be accepted by phone and via secure online connection. The current requirement by most agencies that consumers mail their formal complaints erects just one more barrier to the process. And any single 

Web site and hotline should be widely promoted, as the prior panel 

suggested. 

But perhaps most importantly, an effective complaint system 

should not discourage consumers from complaining, but encourage 

consumer input, commentary, and complaints. We believe that the 

current system is structured not just so that the process itself discourages complaints, but so that the substance of the Web sites 

and the brochures that the agencies provide subtly discourage consumers from complaining. 

Consumers are told to contact their bank first, before complaining. Someone upset by the conduct of their bank is understandably discouraged by this advice, and it probably means that 

some violations of law will go undetected by the regulator. 

Consumers are also told that their complaint will be routed to 

the bank for a response, a process unlikely to be encouraging to a 

consumer who has been down that road, only to hit a dead end. 

They are told that when it comes down to believing what the 

bank said and the consumer said—that is, when there is a question 

of fact—the consumer is on her own, and advised to consult legal 

counsel, an option ludicrous on its face for all but the most significant financial injuries. 

OCC’s HelpWithMyBank Web site advises consumers to contact 

the complaint line if they cannot find their answer online. Unfortunately, when they look for the answer online, they are more frequently than not told that what the bank is doing that is so bothering them is perfectly legal. The content on the Web site provides, 

more often than not, what the bank’s rights are, not what the consumer’s rights are. Also, as we point out in our written testimony, 

in some cases, the information is flat out wrong. 

On an issue I know you have been very concerned about, Madam 

Chairwoman, overdraft loan fees, on HelpWithMyBank, consumers 

are told that there are no limits on the size of fees that banks must 

25

charge, that banks are not required to process checks so as to avoid 

overdraft fees, that banks get to choose whether to reject the check 

or charge the overdraft fee, that the law does not require deposits 

be processed before debits, and so on. 

Nowhere, by the way, are consumers told that they could opt-out 

of this service and pursue other, less costly, overdraft protection 

services. 

Would any rational consumer bother to tell the regulator that 

they don’t like what the banks are doing on overdraft loan fees in 

the face of this information? Of course not. And that means the 

regulators are missing out on critical consumer input. The reality 

is that consumers will not waste their time when the consistent 

message from the regulators is, ‘‘We cannot or we will not help 

you.’’ 

And although most complaint centers describe themselves as 

neutral arbiters, consumers can be forgiven for thinking the deck 

is stacked against them. When they bother to file a formal complaint, they are going to, more often than not, receive a ‘‘toughluck’’ letter. Consumers deserve a regulator that serves as their advocate, not their adversary. 

Finally, we would urge a single technical platform for the agencies with a uniform complaint coding system, so that we can facilitate information sharing of trends regarding the types of complaints. And the coding system should be granular, so we know exactly what consumers are complaining about, not just the broad 

categories that we hear about in the OCC Ombudsman Report. 

Finally, the complaint system must be more transparent to policymakers and the public. Right now, it is not. We receive general 

information. We don’t even know, unless we do the math ourselves, 

how many complaints the agencies are receiving. 

So, with that, Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kenney can be found on page 42 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Edmund Mierzwinski. 

STATEMENT OF EDMUND MIERZWINSKI, CONSUMER PROGRAM DIRECTOR, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and members of the committee. I am pleased to testify in support of your 

legislation to establish a joint hotline among the several Federal 

bank regulators, and also the requirement that there be a study 

done of a joint Web site for the regulators, as well. 

We support, in addition, a number of other suggestions and 

changes to improve the legislation, and some other changes that 

may go beyond the intent or the scope of the legislation, but that 

we think would be important for the subcommittee to consider in 

future legislation. 

The great science fiction writer and futurist, Arthur C. Clarke, 

once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 

Unfortunately, there is nothing magical about dealing with a 

Federal bank regulator. Consumers who complain to us are very 

26

frustrated with their interactions with the banks. We believe, however, that your legislation will go a long way toward creating a 

seamless interaction. 

The first recommendation we would have—and we concur with 

Consumers Union and the CFA on this, of course—is to establish 

one-stop consumer complaint shopping, no matter what the point 

of entry is, whether it is phone, Web, e-mail, fax, snail mail, or perhaps even a walk in. 

Consumers should have one Web form, one complaint form, and 

they shouldn’t have to deal with figuring out anything. The Web 

site or the bank telephone numbers should figure out, ‘‘Okay, here 

is a complaint. We have taken it in, we will figure out who to send 

it to, we are not going to ask the consumer to decide is it a national 

bank or is it a State bank, is it a national bank or is it an operating subsidiary.’’ 

The OCC’s Web site currently requires this sort of forensic examination by a consumer through a set of drill-down menus. The consumer should not have to deal with anything like that. 

We believe that this intake system, this centralized source, 

should also be in both English and Spanish, to start, and perhaps 

in other languages in the future. 

Also, and I believe some of the bank regulators even may have 

supported this concept, which surprised me—is that we believe 

there should be advertising at point-of-sale in the banks. 

We suggest something like a complaint busters logo, modeled 

after the Ghost Busters, ‘‘Who are you going to call,’’ or Mr. Yuck 

at the Poison Control Center, something easy to remember, something easy to identify, something that consumers will see and say, 

‘‘Look, if I have a problem with my bank, I see the poster on the 

wall, or I see the link on the Web site, and I will contact this number.’’ Something like that would greatly aid in pushing this out into 

the public’s eye. 

And even if we can’t get legislation enacted that requires it to 

be posted in every bank, it should certainly be promoted by the regulators in some way. 

Much of the problem that consumers face is that the problem 

isn’t finding a bank regulator, it is getting a bank regulator to do 

something about their problem. The most recent studies of the 

GAO on the bank complaint handling process at the regulators suggest that the number one recommendation of the regulators is, 

‘‘Sorry, we cannot help you, it is a contractual matter.’’ ‘‘Go to 

court,’’ or something like that, but ‘‘Sorry, we cannot help you, go 

away.’’ And the least common response of the bank regulators to 

a complaint is that, ‘‘The bank made an error.’’ 

In our view, the bank regulators aren’t even balanced in the middle. They are, essentially, on the side of the banks. So we would 

suggest that you take some of the money that the regulators receive in the form of fees—and they mostly are outside the Federal 

budget process, they mostly get their money from fees from regulated institutions—and put that money into the centralized source, 

and make the centralized source into an advocate for consumers. 

We already have a model in about 40 States that have a national 

association of State utility consumer advocates. They take a portion 

27

of utility fees, and they create a regulator who simply acts on behalf of consumers. 

To go even further, you could establish something that consumer 

groups have been supporting for years, and then-Congressman 

Schumer supported 20 years ago, which was the establishment of 

a financial consumers association that is chartered by the government, but run by consumers and paid for by dues, that has an opportunity to raise money by putting inserts in bank account statements. 

Again, I think Mr. Neiman strongly supported a lot of this—we 

need to require accountability of complaint systems. We need to 

have data more easily available to you, the policymakers, to me, to 

the public, to academics, and to others. What if the top 10 banks 

were ranked on the basis of their per capita level of complaints? 

What if the 10 worst banks appeared on a Web site? This would 

be very interesting, to have the regulators posting this kind of information, which would help the market work. 

But, at a minimum, we really need to look at getting more information about these complaints out there without having to file 

FOIAs and receive data full of redactions months or years later, 

which is the current situation of dealing with the bank regulators. 

We need to address the toxic regulatory culture. As I indicated, 

the regulators just aren’t on the side of consumers. I do not have 

time to go into this today, but in our joint testimony, of all the consumer groups presented by Travis Plunkett of the CFA at your 

hearing this summer, we presented a number of the issues, a number of the problems. 

For example, the Federal Reserve, the only agency not to fully 

support your legislation today, has tremendous legal authority 

today to ban some of the most unfair bank practices, which it simply chooses not to use. 

Next, we really believe you need to reinstate State attorney general enforcement authority over Federal banks and other Federal 

institutions. Again, it is a long-standing concern of the consumer 

groups that the OCC’s preemption determinations, as upheld by 

the courts, are unfair. We need more consumer cops on the beat. 

We need the competition between State and Federal regulators to 

come up with the best public policies. 

And, finally, as I indicated earlier, the major response that the 

bank regulators make to consumers, according to GAO reports to 

the Congress is, ‘‘Go away, your complaint is contractual.’’ Well, the 

consumer can’t take that complaint to court, because mandatory arbitration provisions in their bank contracts prevent them from 

going to court. 

So, we support Representative Hank Johnson’s legislation, The 

Arbitration Fairness Act, that would eliminate binding mandatory 

arbitration as a requirement in all consumer contracts. Thank you 

very much. 

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

page 61 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Well, I would like to thank both of you 

for your testimony. 

28

But as you heard from the first panel, the Federal Reserve says 

that this legislation is not necessary to encourage the banking 

agencies to develop a consumer response program such as hotlines. 

What is your view of this? Is the Fed doing enough on its own, 

or do we need this legislation? 

Ms. KENNEY. Well, I imagine that Ed and I are not in disagreement on this. 

Certainly, we are pleased that the interagency working group is 

moving forward on this. But, frankly, it is long overdue. And there 

is nothing duplicative about legislation that holds the regulators’ 

feet to the fire, and ensures that they do what they should have 

done a very long time ago. 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. We would agree. I was pleased, when I looked 

on the Fed’s Web site, when I was preparing my testimony. They 

now have consumers on the homepage, and that is good. But they 

need to do more. They need to support this legislation. 

And, even if they don’t, go forward without them. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. I would like you to comment on the suggestions by Superintendent Neiman for additions to the bill. 

Do you agree that adding a requirement for tracking trends and 

case numbers could help with congressional oversight, and provide 

a factual basis for seeing if legislation on a particular issue is needed, for example? 

I would also like to respond to your testimony that we need to 

track whether or not consumers are satisfied with the answers. It 

is one thing to be able to lodge a complaint, but have they gotten 

an answer that allows them to correct the situation, or improve the 

situation? 

Ms. KENNEY. We would certainly agree, and I think indicate in 

our written testimony, that a really fundamental function of a complaint system is tracking consumer attitudes, not just formal violations of law. And that is an opportunity that the current system, 

because it is stovepiped, and because it discourages those types of 

comments, really misses out on. 

So, absolutely. I mean, it is a little bit shocking if tracking is not 

happening now, I think. And, certainly, all of these agencies need 

to do a better job in tracking consumer satisfaction with the resolution. We hear from consumers who are not just frustrated because 

they can’t figure out where to complain, but who are really unhappy with the outcome that simply says this outrageous practice 

was disclosed in a contract you saw 4 years ago, and so, take it up 

with your bank or go talk to a lawyer. 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. We agree. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Okay. And finally, to what extent are 

statistics currently available to you, as advocates for bank customers? 

You mentioned the overdraft challenge. Is there a way that you 

can track how many consumers are disturbed about this practice? 

To what extent are statistics there for you to track trends that are 

extremely burdensome to consumers? 

Ms. KENNEY. Well, Madam Chairwoman, we do have the data 

that is sort of reported in bulk by the agencies, which the OCC now 

reports in the Ombudsman Report, which gives you very broad catVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 040436 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\40436.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
29

egories of complaints by product, and then within each individual 

product. 

But frankly, it is very difficult for us to know without—as Ed 

mentioned, you know—doing a FOIA request, how many people, for 

example, are complaining about overdrafts. And, even within the 

overdraft category, what specifically they are annoyed about. The 

size of the fees? The number of fees? The order of processing? 

Check hold times? And so forth. 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. Yes. We would certainly agree that it is very 

difficult to obtain information, other than the summary data that 

they provide, unless you file a very specific FOIA request. 

I would also take this opportunity to say that the other place 

that the consumer groups find inadequate data availability is in 

the call reports. When we want to compare different banks, and figure out how much money they are making on all their new fees, 

the call reports are extremely inadequate. 

I know there are some government GAO studies of call reports 

going on now, but it would greatly aid us if we could get all of this 

information without having to file FOIAs, without having to jump 

through hoops. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Well, my time has expired. I now recognize Congressman Green for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Chairwoman, if I had any doubt prior to hearing these two witnesses, 

it has been completely eliminated. I again commend you for the 

simplicity of the idea that will deal with what appears to be a very 

complex set of circumstances. 

As indicated, the system appears to be Byzantine. In a polyglot 

society, that makes for an unusual set of circumstances. 

So, Ms. Kenney, let me ask you the question, given that we are 

a polyglot society, should we have multiple languages available to 

persons who call in? 

Ms. KENNEY. Absolutely. And certainly starting with the most 

frequently spoken non-English languages on the Web site, as well 

as on the hotline. I know that does create some resource issues, but 

we certainly need to be responsive to all types of consumers who 

are aggrieved by their bank, and particularly those who have fewer 

resources available to them. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. And because I have really enjoyed hearing your testimony, not because you have a melodious voice—although you do sound good—but because of the substance that you 

presented. It was overwhelming, to a certain extent. 

So, permit me to ask this, so as to enhance your level of acceptance among a diverse group of folk who will have to pass judgement on what we are doing. How are you funded? Let us start with 

Ms. Kenney. How is your organization funded? 

What I am trying to get to is this: Do you have an axe to grind? 

Is there some reason for you to come to Congress and present the 

kind of testimony that you presented? And I think you spoke well. 

Is there some reason that you would have to do this, other than 

that you want to see the right thing done? 

So, tell us, how are you funded, if you do not mind? 

Ms. KENNEY. Thank you, Congressman Green, for your kind 

words. Consumers Union is a nonprofit organization fully funded 

30

by consumer subscriptions to our print magazine, to our online 

Web site, as well as to some of our other print products, such as 

our health and financial newsletters. And we receive some charitable contributions from foundations. But we receive no corporate 

support, and accept no advertising, whatsoever. 

Our goal is to protect consumers and to inform them. 

Mr. GREEN. And when you arrive at the positions that you 

espouse, do you—how do you synthesize these positions? You do 

not just wake up one morning and say, ‘‘You know what? I think 

this is a good idea.’’ Is there some process that you go through to 

arrive at the position that you have arrived at? 

Ms. KENNEY. Yes. Certainly one of the advantages that we have 

is we work across a wide range of substantive areas, and we can 

see difficulties facing consumers across those areas in some of the 

same categories. 

And, certainly, the banking agencies are not alone in the difficulties of the complaint procedures and the unsatisfactory results that 

they yield. So, certainly, we look at a wide range of issues and analyze them. We have been looking at the banking complaint procedure for some time now, and we will be writing about it in an upcoming issue of our magazine, Consumer Reports, as well. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. Let me pass to—and sir, I will not embarrass myself by— 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. That is okay. It is ‘‘Mierzwinski.’’ Simple. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. Congressman Green, we are an independent, 

nonprofit organization. We serve as the federation of State public 

interest research groups, and we are funded solely by individual 

donations. About half of the State PIRGs have college chapters, 

and all of the State PIRGs have individual citizen members. 

We knocked on doors—over four million, five million doors—this 

summer, asking people to join our organizations. And we also accept some charitable contributions from independent foundations. 

We accept no corporate money, whatsoever, and we accept no government grants, either. 

We come upon our positions based on taking a hard look at what 

is the right public policy solution to a problem. We conduct our own 

research, we do our own surveys. We have done a number of studies, for example, of bank fees called The Big Banks Big Fees studies, and we have done this in a number of other areas that we participate in, as well as banking. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you so much. Congressman 

Hodes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you both 

for your testimony. I am struck, as a new Member of Congress, 

now having been here a year, by the complexity of the regulatory 

schemes facing consumers, and the clear testimony that comes 

across that the regulators are not attuned to protecting consumers, 

that the culture that we are faced with is one that has, in fact, set 

up barriers to consumers, and in which consumers are given short 

shrift. 

According to Mr. Mierzwinski, what you saw on the Web site 

with the Federal Reserve was, for the first time, you said you saw 

31

the word ‘‘consumer’’ on there. But it does not sound like it is very 

prominently displayed. 

Now, some of your suggestions, Mr. Mierzwinski, for amendments or additions or considerations in the bill, sound like you are 

advocating that there be a consumer ombudsman office associated 

with this 800 number. Am I getting that right? 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. I think that is absolutely the case. And the situation we have today is that the bank regulators have a dual responsibility. They supervise the banks and they also promote the 

banks. They are required to do a job that makes them too cozy with 

the banks. 

Consumers do not have an ombudsman. I realize there is an ombudsman at the OCC, but the legal responsibility of that ombudsman is not to protect consumers. There are 40 State officials known 

as utility councils, or people’s council, who bring cases on behalf of 

consumers in the State utility arenas. 

There could be a model like that here. Why don’t we make the 

centralized source, the centralized complaint handling system, an 

advocate for consumers, rather than simply a pipeline to the existing agencies, which, again, in our view, have a culture that is probank, not even unbiased, but literally pro-bank. 

Mr. HODES. And whether or not this legislation is the right vehicle for that idea, and whether or not—it certainly sounds like it is 

important for this committee to address the kind of cultural disconnect that you have raised in your testimony between the regulators’ obligation to their institutions and the need for help for consumers. So I appreciate your thinking on that. 

I also take it that it sounds like you share my thought about the 

prominence with which the 800 number and communication about 

it needs to happen in today’s talk show/deficit disorder culture, in 

order to reach consumers in as clear and simple a way as we would 

like it to happen with this 800 number. 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. I think, without a doubt, if you don’t do that, 

then the system will fail. And I would strongly recommend you 

don’t call it the FFIEC hotline, for example. 

Mr. HODES. All right. All right. Follow the KISS principle? 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. Right, exactly. 

Mr. HODES. Do you also think that Congress needs to go so far 

as—let us assume that we have this legislation about the 800 number—requiring the regulatory agencies to display information about 

it on their Web sites and in their information in a particular way, 

with particular prominence, in a particular style, or is that something that we simply leave up to them? 

Mr. MIERZWINSKI. Well, that is exactly my view, is it should be 

something like ‘‘Ghost Busters’’ or ‘‘Mr. Yuck.’’ It should be something that they all have that is the same, so that people know that, 

hey, it is easier to go here. And that, ideally, would go into a bank. 

So, if I walk into a national bank, I see Mr. Yuck or Ghost Busters. If I walk into a State bank or an operating subsidiary, no matter where I go, I see the same logo. Right now, the only logo that 

goes across all the depository institutions is the FDIC logo, because 

they insure them all, except for the credit unions, which are insured by the credit union share fund. 

32

So, that is the only non-confusing logo that is out there. And we 

need something like that, so people understand that when they 

really want help with their bank, there is a one-stop shopping central source, complaint-busters site. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I yield back 

with great appreciation, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. And thank you for your attendance and questions. I would like to note that without objection, 

your written testimony, in its entirety, will be made a part of the 

record, and that the record will remain open for 30 days, so that 

members will have an opportunity to submit written questions to 

you, and to place your responses in the record. I thank you very 

much for your time and your testimony today, and for all of your 

hard work. Thank you. 

The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(33)

A P P E N D I X

December 12, 2007

34


40436.001
35


40436.002
36


40436.003
37


40436.004
38


40436.005
39


40436.006
40


40436.007
41


40436.008
42


40436.009
43


40436.010
44


40436.011
45


40436.012
46


40436.013
47


40436.014
48


40436.015
49


40436.016
50


40436.017
51


40436.018
52


40436.019
53


40436.020
54


40436.021
55


40436.022
56


40436.023
57


40436.024
58


40436.025
59


40436.026
60


40436.027
61


40436.028
62


40436.029
63


40436.030
64


40436.031
65


40436.032
66


40436.033
67


40436.034
68


40436.035
69


40436.036
70


40436.037
71


40436.038
72


40436.039
73


40436.040
74


40436.041
75


40436.042
76


40436.043
77


40436.044
78


40436.045
79


40436.046
80


40436.047
81


40436.048
82


40436.049
83


40436.050
84


40436.051
85


40436.052
86


40436.053
87


40436.054
88


40436.055
89


40436.056
90


40436.057
91


40436.058
92


40436.059
93


40436.060
94


40436.061
95


40436.062
96


40436.063
97


40436.064
98


40436.065
99


40436.066
100


40436.067
101


40436.068
102


40436.069
103


40436.070
104


40436.071
105


40436.072
106


40436.073