U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

96–998 PDF 2016

EXAMINING CONTINUING ALLEGATIONS 

OF DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 

AT THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION BUREAU 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 114–37 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 25, 2015 .................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 25, 2015 .................................................................................................... 35 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015 

Cauldwell, Robert, President, National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 

335; and Examiner, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ............. 6 

Williams, Florine M., Senior Equal Employment Specialist, Office of Civil 

Rights, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) .................................. 7 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Cauldwell, Robert ............................................................................................. 36 

Williams, Florine M. ......................................................................................... 40 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Ellison, Hon. Keith: 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Robert 

Cauldwell ....................................................................................................... 47 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Florine Williams ............................................................................................................... 55 

Green, Hon. Al: 

‘‘CFPB Diversity and Inclusion Efforts Since April 2014’’ ............................ 65 

Article from The New Entrepreneur entitled, ‘‘Bank Discrimination and 

Its ‘Debilitating’ Effect on Minority Entrepreneurs,’’ dated May 30, 

2014 ................................................................................................................ 67 

(1) 

EXAMINING CONTINUING ALLEGATIONS 

OF DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 

AT THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION BUREAU 

Thursday, June 25, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean Duffy [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Duffy, McHenry, Hurt, 

Mulvaney, Hultgren, Wagner, Tipton, Poliquin, Hill; Green, 

Cleaver, Ellison, Delaney, Beatty, and Vargas. 

Ex officio present: Representatives Hensarling and Waters. 

Also present: Representative Love. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will come to order. The title of today’s subcommittee 

hearing is, ‘‘Examining Continuing Allegations of Discrimination 

and Retaliation at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.’’ 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the subcommittee at any time. Also, without objection, members of 

the full Financial Services Committee who are not members of this 

subcommittee may participate in today’s hearing for the purposes 

of making an opening statement and questioning the witnesses. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 3 minutes for an opening 

statement. Today’s hearing marks the fifth in this committee’s investigation into allegations of discrimination and retaliation at the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Next month will be 

the 5-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act which created the 

CFPB, mandating its core mission: to protect consumers of financial products and services from discrimination. 

The agency was the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, who not only 

led it during its start-up year, but also hired all of the senior managers, including the current Director, Richard Cordray. Democrats 

have championed the agency, but since its doors opened in 2011, 

this committee has spent 2 years and more than 5 congressional 

hearings giving a voice to the victims of abuse, and unfair and unlawful discriminatory behavior at the CFPB by its managers. 

We are here again today because these messages have clearly not 

been heard. There is mounting evidence that not only does the 

2 

agency still have a huge problem with managers discriminating 

against employees based on race, age, gender, and sexual orientation, but the CFPB leadership refuses to take meaningful action to 

prevent this behavior and protect their employees. 

Of all the Federal financial agencies, the CFPB has the worst 

track record of protecting its own employees against discrimination. 

The per capita number of Equal Employment Opportunity complaints at the CFPB is far higher than at any other Federal agency. Despite disturbing reports of low morale and congressional investigations, the leadership at the CFPB continues to turn a blind 

eye to the treatment of its own people. 

A new poll from the U.S. Consumer Coalition found that 73 percent of respondents believe that the CFPB should be held to the 

same antidiscrimination standards as all other Federal agencies. 

And a significant majority believe that the CFPB Director, Richard 

Cordray, should be held responsible and fired for their managers’ 

racism. 

The two witnesses we will hear from today are uniquely qualified 

to describe how the indifference and misplaced priorities of the 

CFPB senior management have led to an institutional culture that 

values silence and maintaining deceptive, feel-good appearances 

over merit, professionalism, and human dignity. 

The CFPB is more concerned with bad press than the underlying 

problem and has done little more than run an ineffective internal 

P.R. campaign to assuage employees’ concerns. What is worse, the 

CFPB unit tasked with managing EEO complaints, the Office of 

Civil Rights, is at the heart of perpetuating this troubling work environment. 

The well has been so poisoned that the CFPB employees are 

afraid to come forward to report abuse and discrimination for fear 

of retaliation. 

As one of CFPB’s employees stated in 2014 in the annual survey: 

‘‘Cronyism, favoritism, discrimination, and incompetence run rampant in this agency. Despite all the congressional pressure and press 

reports, things have gotten worse.’’ There are scores of similar comments from other employees who struggle with this same reality 

every day, and they will be shown on the TV screens throughout 

the hearing. Things continue to get worse, and no one seems to be 

listening. 

How can an agency founded on the principles of equality and 

fairness carry out its mission when it can’t even protect its own 

employees from the very practices it seeks to abolish? 

With that, I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Green of Texas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for appearing, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, this morning I attended a meeting of Blacks and 

Jews, talking about the relationship between Blacks and Jews. And 

a rabbi who spoke at the meeting—whose name I shall not call because I don’t have his permission, but I do know that I can say that 

he shared this brief vignette. He told a story of a man who went 

shopping to purchase a Picasso. And after purchasing the Picasso, 

to authenticate it he took it to Picasso himself and said, ‘‘Is this 

a Picasso?’’ And Picasso said, ‘‘No, that is not a Picasso.’’ 

3 

So he went shopping again, looking for a Picasso, received another painting, brought it back, and said, ‘‘Is this a Picasso?’’ to Picasso himself. Picasso said, ‘‘No, that is not a Picasso.’’ He said, 

‘‘But wait, I bought this from your shop. I saw you paint this picture.’’ And Picasso responded, ‘‘I often paint fake Picassos.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we have to be careful that we are not painting 

a fake Picasso. Painting a fake Picasso by displaying slides of 

quotes that have not been authenticated. No cross-examination of 

witnesses, little due process afforded; we have to be careful that we 

don’t paint a false Picasso. This is the Financial Services Committee, formerly the Banking Committee until about 1968, and we 

have not had one hearing on serious, invidious discrimination in 

banks, in mortgage lending. 

We have had hearings to look at individual complaints of discrimination at the CFPB—and by the way, I don’t oppose looking 

at individual complaints at the CFPB—but I do believe that if we 

can do this we can look at the serious, invidious discrimination 

that is taking place across the length and breadth of this country 

against millions of people, and we ignore it. 

We are painting a false Picasso, Mr. Chairman. So let me just 

provide some evidence. We have used the American Banker as evidence; I want to use Bloomberg. We have used the American Banker to look at statistical information; I want to use Bloomberg. We 

have used the American Banker to have what I will call probable 

cause for this hearing; I want to use Bloomberg. 

Here is what Bloomberg says about some serious discrimination—bank discrimination and its debilitating effect on minority 

entrepreneurs. For a recent mystery shoppers experiment, three 

business school professors recruited Black, White and Hispanic entrepreneurs across the United States, dressed them in matching 

polo shirts and khakis, and sent them into banks to ask about 

small business loans. 

The results are disheartening, if not a big surprise. White business owners got better and more encouraging service, according to 

a new paper describing the study in the Journal of Consumer Research. Bank employees were more likely to tell them about loan 

terms and fees and more likely to offer help filling out applications. 

Bankers were more likely to ask minority entrepreneurs about 

their personal finances and less likely to offer the Black and Hispanic mystery shoppers a business card. 

It is not news that Black and Hispanic small business owners 

have a harder time finding financing than White businessmen, but 

the JCR paper offers insight into how entrepreneurs experience the 

process of seeking new capital. 

In one part of their research, authors Glen Christensen, Sterling 

Boone, and Jerome Williams asked business owners to collect 

photos that best described the experience of applying for a loan. 

Minority entrepreneurs chose images such as a dry faucet, a beggar, and a set of handcuffs. 

White business owners focused less on the hard road and more 

on the satisfying result, selecting photos of a water slide and a 

beautiful beachfront idyll. In interviews with researchers, both 

groups described the loan application process as a journey. But miVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 096998 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\96998.TXT TERI
4 

nority consumers framed the journey as uphill, while White consumers consistently framed their journeys as on level ground. 

White entrepreneurs saw lenders who would serve as a partner 

or a friend, according to the paper, while minority business owners 

reported hiring White employees—something to bear repeating— 

minority business owners reported hiring White employees for the 

purpose of attending meetings with bankers. The result, the authors write, is a cumulative, debilitating effect on the psychological 

and physical well-being. These are anecdotal findings, but they are 

supported by quantitative research. 

In 2012, Federal Reserve data revealed that minority business 

owners were paying interest rates that were 32 percent higher 

than what Whites paid. Last year, research from the Kauffman 

Foundation showed that minority entrepreneurs were more likely 

to be turned down for loans and less likely to apply for fear of rejection. 

Let’s not paint a false Picasso; let us look into what is really 

going on in the banks. 

I yield back, and I thank you for the extra time. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Utah, Mrs. Love, 

for 2 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mrs. LOVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This subcommittee, as 

well as the full House Financial Services Committee, has heard 

current and former employees of the CFPB testify about their personal experiences as victims of discrimination, retaliation, and cronyism, as well as about the very related problems of the agency’s 

mismanagement, inexperienced leadership, deficiencies in bank examination processes, and serious operational problems in the 

CFPB’s consumer call center. This is reprehensible, not to mention 

ironic, since in light of the CFPB’s mission—according to its own 

Web site, the CFPB is tasked, among other things, with restricting 

unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices, taking consumer complaints, and enforcing laws that outlaw discrimination and other 

unfair treatment in consumer finance. 

It is incomprehensible to me that the agency created with a mission of preventing discrimination and predatory practices by the financial services industry is incapable and seemingly unwilling to 

restrict abusive practices within its own ranks or to enforce laws 

that outlaw discrimination and other unfair treatment. 

When it comes to their own management and practices, how can 

an agency that is unable and unwilling to govern itself be entrusted to protect the American people; frankly, make sound decisions about how it pursues its own mission? Time and time again 

we have seen examples of the CFPB in search of problems that 

don’t exist, proposing rules without having gathered relevant evidence, or using its examination powers to conduct fishing expeditions. 

This body has been told about the problems, ranking members, 

the Administration has been told about the problems, and nothing 

has been done. Perhaps most disturbing to me is that despite all 

the publicity this issue has received and all the previous congressional hearings, overwhelming evidence indicates that the culture 

5 

of discrimination and intimidation within the CFPB has only been 

growing worse. 

It is clear to me that reform of the CFPB is badly needed. We 

cannot allow this discrimination or mismanagement to be ignored 

or hidden in the Bureau’s current organizational structure. Now, I 

want to say this. I believe that we need to look at discrimination 

everywhere. Why not start here? 

My ears are open. I hope that my colleagues’ ears are open, and 

we are ready to hear you. The American people are watching. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

We now welcome our witnesses. Mr. Robert Cauldwell is both a 

CFPB examiner and the president of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 335, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s union, a position he has held ever since the union was first 

established 2 years ago. CFPB’s union represents about 1,000, or 

75 percent, of the Bureau’s workforce, and has approximately 500 

paying members. 

Before joining the CFPB, Mr. Cauldwell worked at the FDIC as 

a resolutions and receivership specialist. And before that, he 

worked in the private sector. Mr. Cauldwell began his career with 

8 years of military service in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear machinist 

aboard a nuclear submarine. Mr. Cauldwell, we thank you for your 

service. 

We also have Ms. Florine Williams. She has been a Senior Equal 

Employment Specialist in the CFPB’s Office of Civil Rights since 

October 2013. Ms. Williams has a total of 20 years of experience 

in various equal employment and civil rights capacities in other 

Federal agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 

the Department of Defense; and the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. In all, Ms. Williams has 32 years of Federal 

Government service. Ms. Williams holds a bachelor of science in 

business administration from Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania. 

Both of you, thank you for being here. The witnesses will, in a 

moment, be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation 

of their testimony. And without objection, the witnesses’ written 

statements will be made a part of the record. Once the witnesses 

have finished presenting their testimony, each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes within which to ask questions. 

I want to remind the witnesses, verbally, that while you will not 

be placed under oath today, your testimony is subject to 18 U.S.C. 

Section 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly give a false 

statement in proceedings such as this one. You are specifically advised that knowingly providing a false statement to the subcommittee or knowingly concealing material information from this 

subcommittee is a crime. 

On your table, there are three lights: green means ‘‘go;’’ yellow 

is the 1-minute marker, which means you are running out of time; 

and red means you are out of time. The microphones are very sensitive so please make sure you speak directly into them. 

With that, Mr. Cauldwell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes 

for your opening statement. 

6 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CAULDWELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 335; AND EXAMINER, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB) 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Thank you. My name is Rob Cauldwell. I am 

the union president of NTU’s Chapter 335, which represents the 

employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I would 

like to thank Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Green, and the 

other members of the House subcommittee for your time, and for 

allowing me to speak about the important issues of discrimination 

and retaliation at the CFPB. I would like to make two critical 

points. 

First, today’s hearing should not be about me. It is about the 

people who work at CFPB. I care deeply about these people. Second, this should not be a partisan hearing. I believe both parties 

want to fix the problems at CFPB, and I implore everyone here 

today to focus on these very human issues. 

Last year, Director Cordray testified before Congress. I believe 

he was sincere. However, actions speak louder than words. Director 

Cordray’s inaction has created a more discriminatory, challenging, 

and intimidating workplace for employees. Retaliation permeates 

every facet of this agency, as facts in the American Banker article 

show. This Bureau has the most EEO complaints of any Federal 

regulator this year. It is actually 18, not 15. 

The CFPB says there is no evidence of discrimination. The fact 

that cases are settled to an employee’s satisfaction does not obviate 

the CFPB’s behavior. The Bureau retaliation continues. Ask Angela 

Martin. They continue to retaliate against her after she settled her 

cases. Ask Ali Naraghi, who also testified last year and has suffered similar treatment to Ms. Martin. Ali suffered for no other 

reason than he stood up to aggressive and controlling managers 

like Jim Carley, the Southeast Regional Director, whose employees 

have given him the nickname ‘‘King James’’ because of his harsh 

rule and his nepotistic management style. Even his own managers 

complain about him, and Ali just announced he is leaving the Bureau. 

That is what happens: management runs the experienced employees off, especially the older employees or the minority employees, and then hires new, inexperienced people, often only to give 

them a little bit of training and put them in charge of the decisionmaking. 

Employees who complain or report daily to their managers to 

‘‘check in’’ when no other employees have to do this. Another frightening tactic is the inappropriate use of Performance Improvement 

Plan, or PIPs, to remove older or unwanted employees. 

The CFPB trains us on the No FEAR Act and the EEO Act to 

protect employees and managers by separating them during complaint investigations, yet that hasn’t happened. Employees are left 

to work under these very same managers, sometimes for years. 

When employees file complaints, the CFPB reaches into the past 

to dig up irrelevant information. The behavior gets more and more 

shameful every day. 

One CFPB lawyer shared employees’ private information. They 

ask people to retire rather than admit wrongdoing. They have not 

followed their own rules regarding notices of proposed removals, 

7 

which has led to unfair labor practices. This agency’s leaders seem 

to be willing to sell their own souls to protect the ideology of the 

CFPB. 

The examples of retaliation are too numerous to mention. The 

CFPB tells institutions across the country how not to discriminate 

against the American consumer, but they don’t observe these principles when dealing with their own employees. 

The relationship between the union and the labor relations office 

is good, but they are thwarted at every turn by rogue managers. 

Jim Carley and his neophyte ‘‘yes men’’ tried to give an employee 

a failing rating on the performance review. L.R. determined the 

employee would receive a pass rating, yet Jim Carley refused to 

sign the final review. And this is what we deal with on a daily 

basis. 

CFPB employees see what happens to those who come forward, 

and are scared to come forward. The fear of retaliation is palpable. 

I believe Rich Cordray is an affable person, but he doesn’t possess 

the skill set to bring positive change to this agency. We are not 

new, and things have not gotten better; things are only getting 

worse. There needs to be an independent, delegated, sole-source Office of Inspector General (OIG) within the CFPB at all times. 

I thank the subcommittee for your time, and I ask for your help 

in protecting the CFPB employees in a nonpartisan, open, and 

transparent manner. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have about 

this sensitive and sometimes difficult topic. 

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

36 of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Cauldwell, for your opening 

statement. 

Ms. Williams, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF FLORINE M. WILLIAMS, SENIOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST, OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB) 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Florine 

Williams, and I have served as a Senior Equal Employment Specialist in the Office of Civil Rights at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since October 2013. Thank you for allowing me this 

opportunity to testify today about my experience at the CFPB and 

to share with you my concerns about the Bureau’s culture and the 

inadequate measures the CFPB has taken to address its discrimination problems during the year since this subcommittee’s three 

hearings uncovered them. 

I also want to thank my family and friends for their continued 

support and prayers, especially during the last year. 

I take great pride in my 32 years of Federal service, 20 of which 

I spent as a civil rights and equal employment opportunity professional. I have worked for agencies that have achieved model EEO 

programs. I have witnessed agencies take swift remedial action, up 

to and including termination of employment for violators of EEO 

law. 

8 

I have also worked in environments that were in a perpetual 

struggle for fairness and equality. But never until my employment 

at the CFPB have I witnessed such blatant and willful disregard 

for the law, merit systems principles, and the well-being of its employees. Ironically, the agency that was created to provide comprehensive consumer protection and strong remedies for consumers 

has unequivocally failed to protect its own employees and remedy 

harms we have suffered. 

For instance, EEO complaint activity for Fiscal Year 2015, particularly as it pertains to harassment and retaliation, is on par 

with complaint activity for Fiscal Year 2014. I believe the Bureau’s 

apathy has contributed to the normalization and legitimization of 

blatant discrimination within the agency. The CFPB’s failure to 

promote equal employment opportunity and diversity and managers’ discrimination, and retaliation against their own employees 

has made a mockery of the Bureau’s EEO program and, in particular, the Office of Civil Rights. 

The Office of Civil Rights is charged, amongst other things, with 

performing four major functions: providing guidance and training 

on EEO law and agency policy; processing EEO complaints; reporting on EEO activity; and making available an alternative dispute 

resolution program. 

The Bureau struggles to perform these basic functions, in part 

because of the critical lack of subject matter expertise. Before being 

promoted to her current position, the Assistant Director had never 

served as a neutral EEO professional and had only served as an 

attorney representative for the Bureau against complaints in EEO 

and grievance disputes. She is the epitome of the fox guarding the 

henhouse. 

My February 23, 2015, letter to Director Cordray describing 

these issues—copies of which I sent to Deputy Director Antonakes 

and several prominent government officials and legislators, including Chairman Hensarling—has finally resulted in the issues I 

raised being given the attention they deserve. 

I am frequently approached by colleagues who tell me they are 

subjected to maltreatment and discrimination, but who fear they 

will face reprisal if they seek help through the Office of Civil 

Rights. I cannot adequately describe the pervasive and chilling atmosphere that prevails through the CFPB. 

I am compelled to testify before you today because of the unique 

perspective I bring, not only being an EEO practitioner, but also 

a complainant. Unfortunately, I am representative of scores of 

CFPB employees and Federal employees who are frustrated with 

the administrative EEO complaint process. 

I am also representative of CFPB employees and other employees, Federal employees, who are forced to fight discrimination and 

unfair management practices with little to no resources against 

agencies with seemingly limitless resources, including a ready and 

eager legal staff and legal defense funds to support management 

officials, even those who violate the law and the rights of others. 

I believe in the CFPB’s mission to root out discrimination and 

predatory practices adversely impacting the American people. I believe also that the effort used to enforce the law externally should 

also be made with the same vigor internally. 

9 

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to share my 

concerns. 

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

40 of the appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you for your opening statement, Ms. 

Williams. 

I would just note that votes have been called. We have zero on 

the clock, so we are going to recess for votes, and we will resume 

right after the final vote. So we will be back shortly. 

[recess] 

Chairman DUFFY. The subcommittee will reconvene and come to 

order. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Here we go again. We were here a little more than a year ago 

with Angela Martin, who is in the audience today, hearing her stories about racism and sexism and discrimination at the CFPB. We 

also had a chance to hear from Richard Cordray, who came in and 

made a lot of promises and commitments about how the problems 

had been resolved, how the CFPB was on track to be an honorable, 

fair, nondiscriminatory agency, Scout’s honor, or so we were told. 

But here we are again, hearing the same stories of what we 

heard over a year ago. And from what I gather in this, it hasn’t 

gotten much better. I want to ask you both about that in a moment. 

But are either of you fake Picassos? Are you fake victims? Mr. 

Cauldwell, are you faking today? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. No, sir. I am not. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Williams, are you a fake Picasso? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I am not. 

Chairman DUFFY. Based on what the two of you have talked 

about with regard to not just what you hear from your colleagues, 

but what you have gone through personally, is it easy to raise your 

hand and stand up and say, I will come and tell the story not just 

for myself, but for all the employees at the CFPB? Is that easy to 

do or enjoyable, Mr. Cauldwell? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I will say that as a ‘‘don’t ask-don’t tell’’ casualty from the United States Navy, with an honorable discharge, 

the treatment I received then is so much better than what I see 

others going through right now. This is really easy because it is 

about them. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No, this has not been easy for me. I could have 

turned a blind eye for many reasons. I am very close to retirement. 

I could have just gone on about my way and left this battle to 

someone else, but I could not in good conscience carry out my duties as an equal employment specialist, as a civil rights practitioner, and ignore what is known discrimination. So it has not been 

easy; it has been very trying. 

Chairman DUFFY. I want to thank you both for coming in and 

telling your stories and acknowledging what you hear in the workplace. 

And I am not one to sit here and say that we live in a perfect 

world. The stories that we see in other places, in other parts, they 

are disturbing for all of us. We have a unique capacity in this comVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 096998 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\96998.TXT TERI
10 

mittee because I don’t have a wide range of authority. But we do 

have the authority of oversight over the CFPB. 

And if there is racism and sexism in our government, and with 

regard to the CFPB, I think it is our duty to hear those complaints 

and do all we can to apply public pressure so it stops and it 

changes. 

Since the testimony and the hearings that we had with Ms. Martin last year, have things gotten better at the CFPB? Have they 

improved, Mr. Cauldwell? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. No, they have gotten worse. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Williams, do you agree with that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I do agree things have gotten worse. 

Chairman DUFFY. And Ms. Williams, as you do your job—and as 

people know that you have come forward to testify—does anybody 

stop you in the hall or at the water cooler or at the coffee machine 

and tell you their stories? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. All the time. And employees have to be careful— 

I tell them up front if they disclose specific discriminatory actions 

or harassment, I have a duty to report that. 

So what my colleagues generally will talk about is maltreatment. 

Or if they talk about discrimination, then they come into the office 

to file a complaint. But, so often I can’t even get in the building 

without being stopped by coworkers who have their personal grievances with this agency but are afraid to come forward because they 

can’t risk their job, they can’t risk the emotional strain of being involved in a protracted EEO complaint process. 

Chairman DUFFY. So you are kind of a voice for all of them here 

today. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. A voice for many of them. 

Chairman DUFFY. And I want to note that if we have problems 

in the private sector, as Mr. Green pointed out, within banks, we 

have a Justice Department, we have AGs, we have civil suits that 

can also expose that. But I would ask, if you are not coming to us 

to expose this, I don’t know where else you go. 

And Ms. Williams, I know that I saw your letter. Was the first 

person that you wrote to Chairman Hensarling, the chairman of 

this committee to disclose this? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. The letter that I wrote—I actually wrote a letter 

to Director Cordray on February 23, 2015. 

Chairman DUFFY. Director Cordray. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. And I copied several individuals, including Chairman Hensarling, on the letter. 

Chairman DUFFY. And did anyone from the Democrat side—it 

was Ms. Waters, too, right? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. And Valerie Jarrett, from the White House, 

also? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. Okay. And is it—well, I see my time has expired. I will try to abide by our clock. 

Mr. GREEN. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be given additional time, as much as the Chair desires to consume. 

Chairman DUFFY. We have a 5-minute rule. I will be able to 

come back, but I appreciate the gentleman’s offer. 

11 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, please— 

Chairman DUFFY. You can see we have a lot of Members here 

who do want to participate in this hearing, so— 

Mr. GREEN. I yield to the Chair. 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Ellison, the gentleman from Minnesota, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the chairman and ranking member, 

and also thank our witnesses today. Let me just say, as a preliminary matter, as a person who practiced law for many years representing victims of discrimination, I certainly am sympathetic to 

the plight you all are facing. I don’t know who is right or who is 

wrong, but I will say this: I do not believe there is any chance that 

you would be here making your case if there was not an overarching objective to undermine the credibility of the mission of the 

CFPB. 

From your point of view it is like, so what, because I need to get 

my case vindicated. And I respect that. But I just want to ask you, 

do you, both of you, support the mission of the CFPB? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Absolutely 100 percent we support the mission. 

Mr. ELLISON. All right, thank you. It is a good mission and it 

should not be undermined. And would you view it as a tragedy if 

people took your testimony here today to try to do damage to the 

institution? What you are looking for is justice for yourself and others whom you feel are aggrieved. Am I right? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I am not so much looking for individual justice. 

My— 

Mr. ELLISON. Ma’am, really—we have 5 minutes. And I am a polite person, but when it is 3:49, I have to be that way. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Okay. But I just wanted to clarify that my presence here today is not about a single complaint; it is about systemic 

discrimination. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right, but— 

Ms. WILLIAMS. And I support the mission of the CFPB very 

strongly. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. Have you ever heard of the Office of Special 

Counsel? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Have you ever heard of the Office of Inspector General? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. These are institutions that you can make complaints to, is that right? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. And so for somebody to submit that there is no 

other place for you to go to other than this hearing, this body, that 

is actually not accurate. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. No. 

Mr. ELLISON. Oh, you say this is the only place you can go to. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes, because you are too scared to go to those 

other places, because when they find out, they continue the retaliation. 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me tell you, I have represented literally hundreds of people who have been targets of discrimination, and they 

12 

are all scared. I have never met somebody who wasn’t a little worried about bringing a case. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Ellison— 

Mr. ELLISON. So the police, if you have a case of discrimination 

sometimes you just have to make the argument. And I would say 

that is why people like Ms. Martin and others I think have demonstrated courage. 

But you cannot tell me that as a matter of fact these institutions 

do not exist, do not take complaints. And to submit that this is the 

only place you can go is a factual inaccuracy. And you might not 

want to admit that, but it is true. 

Now, look, the CFPB is accused of discrimination. Those matters 

will be worked out in their own time. I make no case about who 

is right or who is wrong. But the truth is, actually, Mr. Cauldwell, 

you have been targeted, you have been accused of discriminating 

yourself. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. That is—discriminating against— 

Mr. ELLISON. Have you been a target of discrimination? Have 

you been— 

Mr. CAULDWELL. A target of discrimination, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Have you been alleged to have discriminated? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. When did that happen? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I don’t know when it actually happened. I get 

bits and pieces here and there. 

Mr. ELLISON. What were the allegations against you, sir? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. That I mistreat women, apparently. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. And what is your opinion about the validity 

of those allegations? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Everybody has their own reasons. It is an internal fight. 

Mr. ELLISON. What is your opinion about the validity of those allegations? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Oh, I don’t think they are valid at all. 

Mr. ELLISON. So sometimes people make allegations that others 

may not believe are valid, right? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. That is true. 

Mr. ELLISON. And so that is why you get the plaintiff, you get 

the defendant, you get the complainant, and you get the other side 

and there is a process to work it out. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Right. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right? Because you yourself were accused of discriminating against women and you say you didn’t do it. And you, 

even you, should be able to make your claim as to why these allegations are false, right? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. That is correct. 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me ask you this. Did you send an e-mail out 

in connection with your complaint against the CFPB? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Ellison, are you speaking to me? 

Mr. ELLISON. I’m speaking to Mr. Cauldwell. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. An e-mail to— 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me just ask, do you recall—I am going to direct 

your attention to the screen. Did you send out an e-mail on December 9, 2013, in which you said, ‘‘And if you are thinking I am 

13 

angry, I am not. I never get angry, but I will get even.’’ Did you 

write that in an e-mail? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Who are you going to get even with? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Let me check the e-mail very carefully. I believe 

that was to NTEU and not to the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

Mr. ELLISON. Who are you going to get even with? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. The NTEU for not taking our cause seriously. 

Mr. ELLISON. Are you the president? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. And we are allowed to disagree with the 

NTEU on occasion, and we have to work it out. 

Mr. ELLISON. So by ‘‘even,’’ what did you mean? You are going 

to get revenge? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. No. 

Mr. ELLISON. I think my time is a little bit over. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 

Mr. Mulvaney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the chairman. 

I was particularly moved by Mr. Green’s introduction regarding 

the false Picassos. I spent a lot of time in the last couple of days 

in my State dealing with race relations. And as proud as I am of 

the way that we have been handling ourselves during the last 

week, the stories that Mr. Green told about the discrimination that 

minorities face at some banks is a problem, it is real, and it is 

something we should be doing something about. 

Here is my question: If the CFPB is supposed to be involved in 

fixing that, how can they fix it when they have the same problems 

themselves? 

Mr. Green, this is not a false Picasso. Here they are. This is the 

source, sir, of the quotations that you see on the screen. These are 

the surveys filled out by the people who work there. It is not a false 

Picasso. This is the original thing. 

I will read one. It says, ‘‘Overall, CFPB mismanagement is— 

Mr. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield, given that he has used my 

name? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I will give you a chance with that, but let me 

read— 

Mr. GREEN. All right, I will await my opportunity. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I have no interest in shutting you out of the 

conversation. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. ‘‘On a daily basis, management practices racial 

discrimination, promotional, compensatory discrimination, favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism to advance Caucasian employees. No 

real changes are taking place.’’ Why would we dismiss that as 

being false Picassos if the whole idea behind this agency is to get 

rid of the type of things that are talking about? I don’t know why 

we would shoot the messenger. 

Mr. GREEN. Would you allow me to respond? 

14 

Mr. MULVANEY. I will, in just a—Mr. Green, I promise. Let me 

just finish my thought, and I will be more than happy to let you 

respond. 

I don’t know why we would shoot the messenger, when all they 

are trying to do is bring to our attention the same thing that you 

want light shed on in the financial institutions that the CFPB oversees. So I think if we are going to make things better, maybe the 

physician needs to heal himself before he starts going out to look 

at patients. 

With that, I would gladly yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. 

I want to thank you for your indication that we should fight discrimination everywhere, as has Mrs. Love. But here is the concern 

that I have. I am not a part-time freedom fighter. I am not an occasional freedom fighter. I am a perpetual freedom fighter, I am an 

all-the-time freedom fighter. And what we are doing here is playing 

the role of part-time, occasional freedom fighters. 

I think they do deserve to have their complaints looked into. But 

we have had many hearings—it has been a year since the last one 

on this point—and we have not had one hearing about the mortgage banking and we haven’t looked into the discrimination that is 

taking place there. That is what I mean by a fake Picasso because 

we don’t take it seriously enough to go to the next level. 

And this is something else that I want to assure you of. 

Mr. MULVANEY. This— 

Mr. GREEN. But you need to hear this. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Don’t take all my time. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay, I won’t. But you need to hear this. I don’t 

think this committee is going to look into any aspect of invidious 

discrimination in mortgage banking. I challenge every one of you— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me cut you off there, then, please. 

Mr. GREEN. Let’s just do it. Let us do it. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And let me answer that this way. This committee does a lot of different things. I don’t like the fact that CFPB 

exists, I will be perfectly honest with you. But it does, and its job 

is to do exactly what you just said. It is their job to do this fulltime. 

We have a lot of different things to deal with; they have this to 

deal with. But if they have these same difficulties inside their 

agency, how can they do the job that I know you want them to do? 

So I hear what you are saying. 

Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will yield to me, I will yield time 

to you when I get my time. Would you yield to me? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure. 

Mr. GREEN. Let’s do this. This is what we need to do. This is 

what being in Congress is all about. 

Yes, the CFPB has a job, but this was the Banking Committee 

until 1968. The Banking Committee, which is now the Financial 

Services Committee, in name, it ought to look into invidious discrimination. 

This is the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. This is 

the subcommittee where we ought to bring those bankers in and 

have each one of them sit right there and then examine their policies and practices in terms of how they have cheated minorities— 

15 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me say— 

Mr. GREEN. —Black people and African-Americans. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me reclaim my time— 

Mr. GREEN. —and Latinos— 

Mr. MULVANEY. —for the last half a minute. 

Mr. GREEN. —for money over decades. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And all I can say to you, Mr. Green—and I appreciate the back and forth—this is perhaps one of the best exchanges I have had since I have been on this committee. I would 

just simply say if we have folks at the CFPB who think there are 

folks who are racists and cronyists and discriminating on any other 

basis at the CFPB, let’s find something we can agree on and try 

and fix that. 

Mr. GREEN. We ought to— 

Mr. MULVANEY. With that, I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. GREEN. I am going to ask the Chair to—Mr. Chairman, I ask 

unanimous consent that this dialogue continue. This is really what 

it is all about, and I appreciate the way you have allowed me to 

have time. Because we can’t allow this to be the genesis, and end 

it there. That is the problem we are going to have, Mrs. Love. We 

are going to end it right here, and talk about all of the things that 

ought to happen with the banks. The banks are ripping minority 

people off. It is time to look at what is happening in banks. Not 

all banks, but those that are doing it. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Waters, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I am sitting here thinking 

about the complications of this issue that we are involved with. 

Complicated because, number one, we are here at the Financial 

Services Committee where the opposite side of the aisle hates the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They hate it, they would 

like to destroy it, they would like to bring it down in any way that 

they possibly could. They have attacked the Director, Mr. Cordray. 

They treated him terribly prior to his being confirmed. He has been 

up here many, many times, where he has been drilled, and he has 

been talked to badly. 

And so we have to take pause when it appears that the opposite 

side of the aisle would simply like to use discrimination as a way 

by which they continue to attack the Bureau. Now, that interferes 

with what may be a legitimate cause that you have. But I want you 

to understand the background of this committee and what is going 

on. 

If you take a look on the opposite side of the aisle that appears 

to be pursuing this issue and holding a hearing, despite the fact 

we have many issues that they should be focused on additionally, 

as Mr. Green has identified. And you have to ask yourself, do you 

think that the majority of the members on the opposite side of the 

aisle are more concerned about discrimination than those on this 

side of the aisle? Just take a look. Just take a look for yourself. 

And so when you come here—yes, you can ‘‘wow’’ all you want. 

When you come here, you have to know that your issue gets all 

16 

mixed up in the politics of this committee. And of course you know 

that many of us are absolutely committed to the implementation 

of— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WATERS. No, I won’t yield. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Well, I— 

Ms. WATERS. Do not interfere with me. I will not yield. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Will the gentlelady extend the same courtesy I 

did to the ranking member? 

Ms. WATERS. I will not extend any courtesy to you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think that is fair. 

Ms. WATERS. And so when you come here, your issues get all 

mixed up with the politics of that is committee. 

And so it has been suggested that perhaps one of the things that 

could be done is to utilize the process at every level. Because there 

are, I guess, several steps to be taken prior to even coming to the 

House of Representatives. 

And so I would just advise that if you are going to pursue your 

issue—and you should—that you go through every step that is basically organized to deal with discrimination while we are at least 

trying, over here, to make sense out of what is going on. Rather 

than have you become the victims of a fight that you have nothing 

to do with over here because of the attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Mr. Green is an attorney who comes from Texas, who was the 

president of the NAACP prior to being elected, who is absolutely 

committed to dealing with racism and discrimination. And as the 

ranking member on this side of the aisle, he has talked about not 

only looking at what is happening in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but every agency of government. 

We have not gotten any support from the opposite side of the 

aisle on doing a comprehensive look at the possibility of racism and 

discrimination. So I don’t want you to feel as if you are not being 

paid attention to or that there are some people who care more than 

others, et cetera. This is a political fight inside this committee that 

has nothing to do with you. 

And the issues that you are dealing with right now are not going 

to be handled properly because of that. And so I am hopeful that 

you will understand that discrimination issues, at least on this side 

of the aisle, are taken seriously. And at the point that I think we 

can at least work something out with the opposite side of the aisle, 

so that we can deal with you fairly and not have you become the 

victims of the fight and the attack on the CFPB, then perhaps it 

would be the time to come here. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full Financial 

Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling, 

for 5 minutes. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you 

for holding this hearing. I am saddened that we have to hold this 

hearing, that so much time has passed and so little has been done. 

We just heard from the ranking member. She does not wish to 

be indifferent as to our witnesses’ plight. Ms. Williams, did you 

17 

seek out help from the office of Congresswoman Waters? Did you 

speak to her staff? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Did they say they could help you? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. What Congresswoman Waters’ office said is similar to what your office said, is that you care about the issues at 

the CFPB, particularly the allegations of discrimination, retaliation 

and— 

Chairman HENSARLING. Did they say they would intervene? Did 

they ask you to be a witness? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. They did not ask me to be a witness. They indicated that they care about the global issues and could not intervene in individual complaints. 

Chairman HENSARLING. So they could not, or would not, intervene. But we just heard from the ranking member that she didn’t 

care to be indifferent. 

Frankly, I found the comments to be outrageous. I know that the 

ranking member has very good vision. I did not know she could 

look into the hearts of her colleagues. And to question the motivation and commitment, frankly, is beyond the pale. It is outrageous, 

and I think frankly that a consistent pattern has happened where 

the Minority of this committee wishes to turn a blind eye when we 

see discrimination that happens in government. Oh, no, no, no. We 

just want to focus elsewhere. We are the only ones who can offer 

protection to these people. 

With respect to the banks, there is a Justice Department. Is the 

Obama Administration incompetent? Is the Obama Administration 

indifferent as to their plight? If so, maybe the gentleman from 

Texas is right. Maybe we need to have some more hearings to find 

out about this indifference and incompetence in the Obama Administration in rooting out discrimination within the banking industry. 

But when it comes to the CFPB, we are the only line of protection, and we would be derelict in our duty if we didn’t hold these 

hearings. We have to be the ones to give the voice to the downtrodden, to the discriminated. This is what we need to do. 

Now, I know that the ranking member finds this to be quite a 

humorous matter. Those of us over on this side of the aisle do not. 

I know perhaps that they would conveniently like to sweep all this 

under the carpet because this is a sainted government agency that 

has a mission with which they agree. 

But ultimately, the question is, are we going to promote a society 

that is color blind, where we judge others based upon the content 

of their character? Or are we going to judge others by the color of 

their skin? Are we going to look at individuals, at their merit, at 

their uniqueness, or are we going to judge them by their genders 

and the color of their skin? 

I, for one, as long as I am chairman of this committee will not 

allow this matter to be swept under the carpet. I will not allow the 

Democratic side of the aisle to try to change the subject. 

As the gentleman from South Carolina says, physician heal thyself. How is CFPB supposed to protect anyone in the marketplace 

when their own house appears to be run amok? This isn’t just one 

or two accusations. It is a couple of pounds worth of accusations. 

And yet the Democratic side says no, no, no, let’s just go talk about 

18 

the banks. Well, first talk about the Justice Department. I want to 

hear you defend it, then. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared— 

Chairman HENSARLING. I would be very happy to hear someone 

on the other side of the aisle tell me why this is taking place in 

the Obama Administration, and why do you consistently try to 

change the subject, and why do you turn an indifferent ear to all 

the plights and pleas of the employees of the CFPB? And I hope 

the entire Nation is watching because they will learn much about 

our colleagues in this. 

I thank the chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry. I would like to— 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back, and— 

Mr. GREEN. My inquiry is beyond what the gentleman is doing. 

I think a point of inquiry has to be addressed. 

Chairman DUFFY. Is it a parliamentary inquiry? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, a parliamentary inquiry. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman will state his inquiry. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Will there be an additional 

round of questioning today? Because I would dearly like for the 

chairman of the full committee to be here when I respond to his 

query. He called my name. I would like to respond, and I would 

like for him to hear my response. Will there be an additional 

round? 

Chairman DUFFY. I don’t think we have made that decision yet. 

We will look at the time, and the votes. It is possible. But if you 

would like, I could recognize you now for 5 minutes, as the ranking 

member. 

Mr. GREEN. Would you allow me to have 5 additional minutes? 

Because I have already some things that I would like to say, and 

I would like to have an additional round. 

Chairman DUFFY. You, as everyone else, will have 5 minutes. So 

if you want to go now, I will recognize you— 

Mr. GREEN. Why don’t you go to Mr. Cleaver and he will yield 

to me. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman will state his inquiry. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Has the gentleman from Texas already used his 

5 minutes? 

Chairman DUFFY. He has not. 

Mr. MULVANEY. He has not spoken yet today. 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Okay, I withdraw my inquiry. It was an opening 

statement. Thank you, Mr. Green. I apologize. Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. That is quite all right We all make mistakes. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cleaver for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my 

5 minutes to Congressman Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank my friend, 

and he is a friend, Mr. Hensarling. I rarely call names when I 

make my commentary. But when people call my name, I am going 

to have a response. I have been called out, so let’s talk for a moment. 

19 

There are people who are part-time freedom fighters, occasional 

freedom fighters. There are people who now want to take down the 

Confederate flag. I want to bring down invidious discrimination. 

The flag is but a symbol. We need to bring down invidious discrimination, Mr. Chairman. 

They had many excuses for not taking down the Confederate 

flag, just as we have excuses for why we have not dealt with banks 

appropriately in terms of invidious discrimination, and it is time 

for us to do it. 

There are all kinds of excuses for why that flag is flying right 

now at the funeral, while the body of a Senator is lying in state. 

What an insult. 

We can always find reasons to say we can’t do it, let somebody 

else do it. Let the Justice Department do it. This is the Oversight 

and Investigations Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. We have the 

power. If the Obama Administration evaporates today, right now, 

it will not eliminate our necessity to do what we should do and can 

do. We have the power. 

Mrs. Love has said we ought to do it. She says that she wants 

to fight discrimination everywhere. We know that it exists in banking. Every single test that has been taken—and that is what we 

do, we do testing, we send three people out—would you please give 

me the article that I want to submit for the record? We send three 

people out, and we then find out how they are treated when they 

apply for these loans. 

And in every single case, minorities are being discriminated 

against. You can’t find one where they haven’t been discriminated 

against. If you do, there may be one or two exceptions. But this is 

what we need to do. This is our job. Let’s not talk about passing 

the buck to the Administration. 

I have heard people respond with a fatuous comment, and I take 

fatuous comments seriously. The fatuous comment of when we can 

investigate the White House, then we will investigate the banks. 

That is so fatuous. It is time for us to get serious about this. Taking down a flag and trying to pass the buck on to somebody else 

is not going to end invidious discrimination. 

Now, for the CFPB. I don’t have any affinity for invidious discrimination and persons who might perpetrate it at the CFPB. I 

think that we should investigate it. I don’t have a problem with it. 

I just don’t want to end it there. 

And we have been doing this for over a year and we haven’t done 

one thing about the banks, not one thing. And we know that people 

have been taken advantage of. All of the empirical evidence is indicating that minorities, Blacks and browns, have been taken advantage of. With the yield spread premium, they were the primary victims. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GREEN. Of course, I will yield. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I would just simply inquire, is there a 

specific law that the gentleman believes should be added to the 

books? And I again pose the question, is the gentleman recommending that we bring in members of the Justice Department to 

find out why these laws are not being enforced? 

20 

Mr. GREEN. So now it is about a law that we should promulgate 

to assist the Justice Department in some way, or someone—I am 

not sure I entirely understand the point. 

Chairman HENSARLING. If the gentleman would yield again, I 

will try to make it more clear. 

Mr. GREEN. I will yield in just a second, if I may. I am not advocating—are you saying we should have another law for the CFPB? 

Hardly. What you want is a five-board commission. You want to 

eliminate the position that Mr. Cordray has. 

But the point is this. We have the authority to do our job. Why 

would we point to someone else and say we are not doing our job 

because they are not doing theirs. That is called passing the buck, 

Mr. Chairman. We ought not pass the buck. We are big people, 

boys and girls as it were, and we ought to take on the challenge. 

Don’t be afraid of the banks. 

The CFPB can’t fight back. They are not going to be able to go 

out there and find somebody to run against you. Fear not, move 

forward. Take up the challenge. The banks deserve to be investigated. Not all of them are culprits, but those that are have been, 

for decades, ripping off Black and brown people. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. 

Wagner, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. It is the authority—thank you, Mr. Chairman— 

of this committee to conduct the hearing that we have in front of 

us. This is an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing 

titled, Examining Continuing Allegations—Continuing Allegations—despite all the work that has been done and the hearings 

that have been had by this committee and others and by our full 

committee also—on Discrimination and Retaliation at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

I want you both to know, Mr. Cauldwell and Ms. Williams, as 

well as Ms. Angela Martin, who is in the gallery, along with any 

others who are here from the CFPB, that you have not been used. 

You are not pawns. We are not indifferent to the 2 pounds of plight 

that you have been suffering. 

And I thank you all for standing up for what is right and what 

is just for yourself and for your colleagues. I hate discrimination. 

No one should question or laugh at my motivation, or this side of 

the aisle’s, or yours. 

Since our hearings last Congress, it is indeed unfortunate that 

the CFPB seems to be moving in the opposite direction of fixing 

these issues, despite the amount of attention from Congress and 

the employees of the CFPB. And, in fact, in March of this year the 

Federal Reserve Inspector General released your report further detailing significant racial bias in hiring and promotion as well as 

failures in implementing equal opportunity standards and tracking 

complaints at the CFPB. 

However, what is most troubling is that it seems that the CFPB 

doesn’t seem to care or they are unable to enact any change under 

the current management. 

Mr. Cauldwell, first of all I want to thank you, sir, as an Army 

mom, for your military service in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear maVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 096998 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\96998.TXT TERI
21 

chinist—it was fascinating to read about—and for your service to 

our Federal Government. 

As part of an American Banker article published earlier this 

morning, you stated that you ‘‘don’t think the CFPB is scared of 

Congress. They weather the storm and feel more empowered.’’ Additionally, in your testimony for this hearing you say that the Bureau is soulless. Those are serious words, sir. Mr. Cauldwell, do 

you believe that management is at fault for these discrimination 

and retaliation issues? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I do. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Would that also include Director Cordray? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Do you believe that Director Cordray has appropriately acted to remedy these claims while at the CFPB? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I do not. 

Mrs. WAGNER. The fact that this congressional subcommittee is 

now convening its fifth hearing on these allegations, and the sixth 

hearing of the general committee about discrimination at the CFPB 

with no discernible changes in the workplace culture is quite telling. 

Is that a direct reflection, do you believe, of Director Cordray’s 

leadership at the Bureau, sir? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. You are the elected president of the NTEU? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I am. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Who elects you, sir? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. The members. 

Mrs. WAGNER. The members of your union have elected you as 

their president— 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. —and as their spokesperson and as their representative. Mr. Cauldwell, in your written statement you stated 

that Director Cordray does not possess the skills to bring positive 

change to the employees at this agency. Do you stand by that statement, sir? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I do. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Obviously, something has to change at the Bureau 

to make a better workplace for you, sir, and for your coworkers. Is 

that right? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. It is. 

Mrs. WAGNER. And for those that you represent, the NTEU, is 

that correct, sir? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes, it is. 

Mrs. WAGNER. And you stand behind that statement—that Director Cordray does not possess the skills—and I quote again—‘‘to 

bring positive change to employees at the agency.’’ Doesn’t it logically follow that you believe someone else, someone with the requisite skills to bring positive change to the Bureau, should be serving as Director? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I do. 

Mrs. WAGNER. ‘‘Otherwise, positive change can never happen for 

the employees at the CFPB.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

22 

Mrs. WAGNER. Considering the fact that we have seen no change 

in culture over the past year when we first started our congressional oversight, how can we believe things will get better at the 

CFPB under Director Cordray going forward? How? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t know 

what we can do. I can say there is all this talk of false allegations 

and all that stuff. But this is what I have said the whole time: 

where there is smoke, there is fire. Something is wrong— 

Mrs. WAGNER. And there is a big fire, Mr. Cauldwell, here, and 

it has been burning for a long time. I thank you all for your courage. For those that you represent, we will give you a voice, a voice 

for those who are voiceless, those who have taken this cause, and 

your concerns and your discrimination from place to place to place 

to place. We, as a committee, have to help solve this rampant 

abuse and discrimination in the CFPB. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking 

Member Green. And to the witnesses, let me start by saying thank 

you for being here. 

Today is difficult for me, and I am sure it is equally as difficult 

for you. But let me just say these few statements before I ask you 

a question. What you have witnessed here is the problem that we 

have. We are here to ask questions of you to try to bring change 

to one of the most awful situations that employees can find themselves in: women; African-Americans; and other minorities. 

Our role is to do what, in part, my colleague Ann Wagner just 

said: to ask the questions of you. But when I walk into a hearing 

and I hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., being quoted, that it is not 

the color of your skin, but being judged by the content of your character—I wrote that down because I want my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle to remember those words. Because Dr. King 

also said it is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy 

that defines your character. 

So the message I want to send to you, because I agree with my 

ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who can look into the hearts and souls of 

her members and into my heart. And just as you said, we are dealing with the soul of the CFPB, and it is soulless. 

Well, right now so are we, because we have been so off track. 

And that is why you hear the compassion of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and the compassion of Congressman Al Green. Because 

I am comfortable in saying no one has witnessed the discrimination 

that we have witnessed, no one has fought harder against discrimination over a long period of time than that Congresswoman, Maxine Waters. 

If you look to her past, at her history, you will see that she has 

been given more awards for advocating for the poor, for Blacks, for 

women, and has led the charge across this Nation. 

Last Sunday, as I was watching TV, I saw Maxine Waters in 

Charleston, South Carolina. She was standing there with the peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 096998 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\96998.TXT TERI
23 

ple because of this horrific tragedy that has happened in this Nation. But for us to come here and want to confuse it with what we 

are doing with banks, let me just say two wrongs don’t make a 

right. I want to see this same compassion when we are talking 

about children starving and SNAP dollars being taken away. I 

want to see this same compassion when we talk about people living 

in public housing. 

If we would bring that compassion together versus fighting each 

other and making this a political battle over the President of these 

United States, in some ways that is discriminatory to me, because 

he is the first Black man to serve as our Nation’s President. So if 

we are going to go there, we don’t want to go there on discrimination. Because more people on this side of the aisle understand what 

you are going through. 

So I take this very seriously. I worked over 20 years in public 

housing as a consultant. I am one of your strongest advocates for 

protecting the people. And we should take this operation, this opportunity, to make sure that we stand up for you, that we hear you 

independent of the banks. 

You didn’t come here—in any of your testimonies—bring a complaint or confuse it with the banks. This is about the employees 

who work there, and I am a big supporter of the CFPB. But I am 

not a supporter of people discriminating in the workplace or anywhere else. 

We have been a very strong advocate on this issue. We signed 

a letter, a year ago, asking the Office of the Inspector General to 

get involved and to conduct oversight. Congresswoman Maxine 

Waters has fought hard for OMWI and has taken Democrats and 

Republicans to task about not having protections in place for minorities and women. So let me just say to you that we are here for 

you and this is not a political battle. We understand discrimination. 

Thank you for your courage. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

panel for taking the time to be here. 

We have heard a number of comments that not one thing has 

been done about the banks and discrimination. And I think we all 

have the same heart: that we do not want to see discrimination by 

color, sexism, whatever happens to be in any institution. But what 

this hearing is about is about you and your experiences at CFPB. 

So what has happened, from your experiences, to be able to correct 

discrimination in the CFPB? Has anything been done? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I don’t believe so, no. 

Mr. TIPTON. Ms. Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. In my opinion, nothing has been done. If you look 

at the history of the CFPB, it took the agency 2 years to even have 

an office of equal employment opportunity. The office—or just EEO 

itself, in my opinion—was treated like a hot potato. It was tossed 

to four different areas before, after 2 years, there was an office. 

And even when the office was established, an individual who was 

an agency attorney representing the agency against EEO comVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Mar 02, 2016 Jkt 096998 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\96998.TXT TERI
24 

plaints and against negotiated grievances was made the face of 

EEO. And as long as the behavior continues in CFPB, as long as 

the Director accepts the behavior from his management officials 

who are engaged in discriminatory behavior, I don’t see how anything can change. 

Mr. TIPTON. So you have had no direction, Ms. Williams, from 

the Director of the CFPB, Mr. Cordray, to try and really address 

the problem. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Director Cordray issues periodic notices concerning equal employment opportunity, concerning the No FEAR 

Act, concerning whistle blowing. But the statistics themselves—this 

is just not my view—but the statistics themselves, when you look 

at those, show that the discrimination within the agency is ongoing. 

And not just the statistics from the No FEAR Act complaint, but 

the 2 pounds of documents that you all referred to, the IG report, 

the DIG report, the Deloitte study, and here most recently the 

study from the Charles River Associates. So there are so many 

problems at the CFPB that can be resolved, yet for whatever reason they are not. And the climate is worsening. 

Mr. TIPTON. I think, and I hope and believe on both sides of the 

aisle it is to be results oriented. And what you are telling us is, the 

flags are there, the problems exists, memos are issued but there is 

no real follow-through from the leadership of the CFPB. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Correct. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Because I think, Mr. Chairman, that is what 

this hearing is about. It is not about the institution. We are talking 

about, within the institution, discrimination that is going on. When 

you were trying, Ms. Williams, to be able to carry out your job, do 

you think that you have all of the tools available to you and the 

support necessary to be able to stand up for your people, the people 

you work with? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I don’t think the necessary tools are there. 

And that is one of the reasons that I am especially excited about 

the bill that Mr. Cummings and Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton are 

sponsoring, the Federal Antidiscrimination Act of 2015 to enhance 

the No FEAR Act. I think that is very important to establish some 

separations between agencies’ EEO, human resources, and legal divisions, to give agencies an opportunity to promote these EEO programs and provide the services that these offices should be providing. 

Mr. TIPTON. Good. I appreciate that. You don’t want to—I guess 

one of my frustrations on coming from the private sector, and I 

have lately—you can probably all agree, the last recourse when we 

are talking about discrimination is typically going to be government. 

In the private sector, when there are issues that are coming up 

on discrimination, there will be fines, there will be penalties, and 

there will be prescriptive measures to be able to address it. 

But yet apparently, from what you were testifying here today, 

the government is not applying the same rules to itself that it expects—may not achieve, but expects—out of the private sector. 

Would that be accurate? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

25 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. So let’s talk about the structure of how the CFPB 

is put into place. Mr. Cauldwell, maybe you would like to address 

this. We have a lot of power that is vested in one person. We do 

have legislation that has been noted by our counterparts on the 

other side of the other aisle to be able to put in a panel of people. 

Would that be a sensible way to be able to get a responsive mechanism, rather than leaving sole decision-making in the hands of one 

individual? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. So when we began all this at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I didn’t agree with that. But because of 

inaction, I kind of waver on that. There are more people internally 

who support that idea as employees of the CFPB than you would 

think. And I even am questioning myself on that. 

I just think a person of leadership has a duty to protect their 

people over the ideals of the agency first. Because with one you 

don’t have the other, and that is not happening. 

Mr. TIPTON. So it is going to be important that we actually look 

at the results that are going to be coming out rather than trying 

to just protect the institution. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Yes. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. TIPTON. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maine, Mr. 

Poliquin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And I 

want to thank Mr. Cauldwell and Ms. Williams for being here 

today. It takes a lot of courage for you folks to be here. I appreciate 

it very, very much. 

This is an uncomfortable topic for a lot of people, myself included. I don’t think there is any place for discrimination for any 

reason in Maine, where I represent, or in America. And I don’t 

think it is helpful for folks on this committee to accuse others of 

being racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body, and I didn’t 

raise my son to be that way, and my mom and dad aren’t, and I 

don’t associate with people like that. I don’t know people like that. 

We are all God’s creatures; we are all here for a reason. And you 

folks are here trying to make our government a better place to 

work so it works for all the taxpayers and all the people that we 

represent. 

So I really appreciate you being here. Now, I am all about solving problems. And Ms. Williams, in particular your testimony here, 

if I am not mistaken, and based on the readings that I have, you 

have been working in the public sector on behalf of the citizens of 

this country for about 32 years, about 20 of which you have specifically worked in the equal opportunity and civil rights area. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. To make sure that folks who work at the CFPB 

are not discriminated against and they are not intimidated in the 

workplace such that they can do their jobs properly. Now, I am 

guessing—but I would like to ask this question—do you have contact with other folks who have similar jobs at other agencies in our 

26 

Federal Government? You must have an organization or socially informally meet with them. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. You do. And have you—or do you believe that 

there is the level of continuous biases is what I have heard today, 

at the CFPB—do you think that exists in other agencies, or is it 

specific to CFPB? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think it does exist in other agencies. I think the 

difference is at the CFPB it has gone unaddressed by the union for 

too long. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Why do you think that is the case? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think that equal employment opportunity and 

civil rights is not important to Director Cordray. As I mentioned 

earlier, the EEO office was not even established until 2 years after 

the agency was established. Director Cordray delegated that responsibility to four different areas within the agency. When you 

look at the CFPB, for example the Office of Enforcement or Examinations, that responsibility was not delegated multiple times 

throughout the agency. As soon as the agency was established, employees who possessed the requisite skills were sought out for those 

positions. 

This position, this EEO office, appears to be an afterthought for 

this agency. And now that the organization has been restructured 

to somewhat place the EEO office a little bit closer in line with the 

Director’s office, and he now is essentially my third-level supervisor, I talked to him—or wrote him a letter—prior to reaching out 

to anyone else to explain the discrimination and reprisal that I personally have been subjected to, but also my view on the lack of resources, in terms of human resources in the EEO office, to effectively run this EEO office. And he was not responsive. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you, Ms. Williams, very much. Mr. 

Cauldwell, you represent workers throughout the Federal Government in various different agencies. Do you see, or do your members 

see, the level of problems that we have with respect to this issue 

at the CFPB existing in other agencies where your members work? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. No, and working at a prior agency I can speak 

to this directly. You have managers at every agency who don’t do 

the right things. That is just human nature; it is who we are. 

Sometimes, it happens. But at the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau, it is institutional. It is not one manager or the other, although sometimes it is. It is everybody’s culture. And we have to 

change that. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. How do we change that? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. Well, you have to take these things seriously. 

It is like a 12-step program: saying they don’t exist and ignoring 

them doesn’t make it so. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Do we think we have taken them seriously, when 

this committee has gone back to the CFPB—apparently on numerous occasions—and it is still going on? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I don’t think the CFPB has taken this seriously, 

no. I think they think that we couldn’t be doing that, we are better 

than that. I think they are in denial. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cauldwell. Thank you, 

Ms. Williams, very much. 

27 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 

Hill, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman? Could I get unanimous consent for 

15 seconds? I would like to ask the last questioner just one question so I can— 

Chairman DUFFY. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I would like to ask the speaker—I will look at it. 

We can’t catch it in real time, but I thought you said it was not 

normal on this committee for anyone to call anyone a racist. I will 

check it when we can get it typed. I am pretty certain I heard that, 

but I just wanted to make sure because I don’t want to offend anybody. 

Chairman DUFFY. And I would just note that we are going to 

have votes called, and we do have several Members who do want 

to ask questions. And so I don’t want to go into a colloquy. I know 

that Mr. Green will have 5 minutes in a second, so I appreciate 

that. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Hill for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking 

member and our witnesses. We are here for an important purpose 

and, Mr. Chairman, I don’t appreciate the allegations made by the 

full committee’s ranking member. I took them quite personally and 

I don’t think it is in keeping with the House decorum. 

I have only been in Congress for 6 months, but I bring with me 

35 years of experience in hiring people and working in both the 

Federal Government in the Treasury and in the Executive Branch, 

and then in the private sector. And we are here to deal with this 

matter today, and it is an important matter. 

Another thing that has been suggested is that our witnesses 

today have come here first or exclusively, and have thrown their 

pleas on the House Committee on Financial Services to the exclusion of other remedies. And I don’t think that is true, from looking 

at the chronology here. 

They took their complaint to the Office of Minority and Women 

Inclusion. They have complained, members have complained, to the 

U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Deloitte Consulting 

has had focus groups and analyzed the practices of this agency. As 

noted, the CFPB union has noted challenges, and complaints have 

been made to that union. 

The Federal Reserve’s IG had been involved and looked into the 

matters and allegations made by these witnesses and others. It is 

because nothing has happened that these two people are before our 

House Financial Services Committee, and I find that a sad day. I 

agree with Members on both sides of the aisle who said it has been 

a long time and nothing has happened. 

But the duty for something to happen does not rest in this committee. It rests with the management of the CFPB. And I would 

like to ask a few questions about that. Who is in charge of personnel at the CFPB? Who is the chief H.R. officer for the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. The Chief Human Capital Officer is now Jeffrey 

Sundberg. 

28 

Mr. HILL. And how long has he been there? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I believe it has been less than 6 months. 

Mr. HILL. And does the EEO officer, equal opportunity officer, report to that person? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No, the EEO Director most recently has reported 

to the Chief Operating Officer. So that was the same alignment 

with the Office of Human Capital. But last fall, that reporting 

structure changed, and she now reports to Mr. Ishimaru, who is 

the Director of the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. 

Mr. HILL. All right. And to whom does that office report? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. To the Director. 

Mr. HILL. And is that, in your view, Ms. Williams, a standard 

best practice inside an Executive Branch agency now? Has the Bureau now adopted what you think is a standard best practice? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, it is not my view. But the EEOC’s management directive specifically talks about, in its very first chapter, 

about the organizational reporting structure, and that the Assistant Director of the Office of Civil Rights is to be a direct report to 

Mr. Cordray so that there is no perception of a lack of neutrality 

or no perception of her not having his ear to report to him whatever matters she considers are worthy of his attention. So even 

though there was a restructuring last fall, it still is not a restructuring in alignment with what the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission recommends. 

Mr. HILL. And is Stacey Bach still the leader of this effort? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. HILL. And do you think she has been effective under this realignment as the Director of the Office of Civil Rights? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No. 

Mr. HILL. Can you tell me the top two or three reasons why you 

don’t think she is effective? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. The top two or three reasons, one—as I mentioned—that prior to being non-competitively reassigned to this position, she served as an agency attorney representing the agency 

against employees who had filed EEO complaints and grievances. 

So whether real or perceived, to place a person like that as the face 

of EEO after the agency had not even had an EEO office for 2 

years is a misstep that should not have happened. 

Two, Ms. Bach does not possess the requisite qualifications for 

the position, nor is she fit for the position based on her demonstrated behavior. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Ms. Williams. I would conclude simply by 

saying, Mr. Chairman, that there is a Fair Housing Act, there is 

a Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, there are fair labor standards in 

this country, there is an EEOC office in every major city in this 

United States, and if private sector players are not performing 

their responsibilities in fair hiring and labor practices they should 

be investigated by those agencies and by the Department of Justice, 

Thank you. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

29 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also add that 

there is an EEO office in CFPB, and there is also an EEOC office 

available to persons at the CFPB. But we still have the Congress 

involved, and I am not opposing the involvement of the Congress. 

I just think the Congress ought not stop with the CFPB. You have 

remedies that were available to you and you have used yours. One 

of you, I think, has exhausted remedies, and you may be doing 

some other things all available to you. 

Now, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the 

record an exhibit styled, ‘‘CFPB Diversity and Inclusion Efforts 

Since April 2014,’’ which details some 10 things that have been 

done since 2014. I won’t go through them, since time doesn’t permit. 

Chairman DUFFY. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GREEN. Also, an article styled, ‘‘Bank Discrimination and Its 

Debilitating Effect on Minority Entrepreneurs,’’ without objection, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman DUFFY. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to do 

this. Because I enjoy having my colleagues respond to me and I 

have to respond to them. So here is my challenge. My challenge to 

my colleagues is this, on both sides. It wouldn’t surprise me to 

know that we have somebody over here who thinks a little bit differently from me. So I challenge people on my side, too, if there is 

one over here. You set a hearing to deal with mortgage banking 

and the invidious discrimination therein. I will not talk about it 

any more and will wait until we get to that hearing. 

So that is my challenge to you, Mr. Chairman. That is my challenge to you, Mrs. Love. I am calling names. My name was called 

today; I resort to calling names. Let’s have the hearing. Set the 

hearing and I won’t talk about them anymore. 

But if we don’t, here is what is going to happen. The next time 

I get a chance—I have an article here that is styled, ‘‘The Banks 

That Got Caught Discriminating Against Black People,’’ but I 

haven’t had a chance to vet it yet—I am going to call the names 

of those banks. You can run but you can’t hide. You can duck but 

you are not going to dodge. I am going to call you out. 

And I would also add this. I want to give an expression of appreciation to Goldman Sachs. They did send somebody by, some people 

by to talk to me. These are the banks that are ducking and dodging 

and hiding. If you don’t talk to me, I am going to point out that 

you are ducking and dodging and hiding. It is time to bring this 

to closure. 

We have had the opportunity to deal with this and we have 

turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. It is not something that we will 

pass the buck on. It is akin to, in my opinion, the way we dealt 

with the Confederate flag. 

I wore this tie for a purpose, I love my country. I love it. I say 

a pledge of allegiance to one flag, this flag. It is the United States 

of America under this flag. The Confederate flag divides us, this 

flag unites us. I love my country. I love it so much that I am not 

going to let the banks continue to rip off minority people. And I 

said ‘‘rip off.’’ What they have done is sinful, and what we are 

30 

doing is sinful because we won’t look into it and we have every excuse available to the human mind. 

I challenge you. Set a hearing and you won’t hear any more from 

me on this point. Don’t set one, and at every meeting that we have 

I am bringing up the banks. I want to yield the rest of my time 

to Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much, Mr. Green. One of the 

reasons I suggested to our witnesses here today to go through the 

system is because it gets very complicated, and there are some 

things we can’t ferret out in a hearing like this. 

First, let me try and understand something. Ms. Martin is in the 

audience, Angela Martin. I remember she came before this committee and, as a result of that, we interacted with CFPB. She received a settlement. Mr. Cordray did something about changing the 

bonus system, he required a study. The study made some recommendations. So we have been paying attention to some of the actions that Mr. Cordray has taken to deal with some of the issues 

that were brought to us by Ms. Martin. 

The other thing is, we were told for Mr. Cauldwell that you are 

the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, but you 

don’t have their support and you don’t represent them before this 

committee. And I am also told, which is very confusing, that Ms. 

Williams, at EEO you heard Mr. Cauldwell’s complaint and allegations. You ruled against him, and you said that he had not been 

discriminated against. Is that true, Ms. Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Ms. Waters, I cannot discuss individual complaints. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay, that is fine. You don’t have to. Mr. 

Cauldwell, are you representing the union here today? Or are you 

representing yourself? 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I am representing the chapter of the union. 

Ms. WATERS. I can’t hear you. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I am representing the chapter of the union. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay, I don’t know what that means. But I point 

this out because it is very difficult to get at all of this in a hearing, 

where the politics are involved. And that is why I suggest you go 

through the system so that you can have allegations that are investigated properly. 

Because it gets very confusing when we hear that you have been 

ruled against by your own EEO. And also, I understand that while 

you say that you have not had EEO, the Treasury had EEO prior 

to your getting organized there at the CFPB. Is that true? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is. 

Ms. WATERS. All right. So, you see, we— 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. —can’t figure all this out and deal with the information that is coming from different sources in a committee like 

this. And thank you so much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Hultgren, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. I would actually like to yield my time 

to Chairman Duffy. 

31 

Chairman DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. It has 

been an interesting hearing so far. I would just note, if our witnesses, Mr. Cauldwell or Ms. Williams or Ms. Martin, who is here 

today, or any of the CFPB employees wonder why this hasn’t 

stopped, wonders why this CFPB management feels emboldened to 

do what they do to you, something that doesn’t exist from—I believe what I have heard from you, doesn’t happen in—any other 

governmental agency what happens at the CFPB. The way they 

can get away with it is because this committee will do everything 

they can to not focus like a laser at the racism and the sexism and 

the ageism at the CFPB. You will hear a lot about big banks, you 

will hear a lot about everything else. And you know what? There 

is a lot to talk about. 

But today, we don’t have anybody but those who have been victims of racism and sexism at the CFPB. And I don’t know if you 

have noticed, but no one wants to talk about that. How many questions did you get? I was hoping we were going to have an engagement and hear your story. 

And you hear a lot of back and forth, talking about issues at 

30,000 feet. And I hope, Ms. Williams—I imagine you came in, and 

you were like, you know what? I want to tell my story. I want to 

tell the story of the people who report to me and what happens in 

our agency. Because, yes, there are problems all over America. But 

I have problems right here in a governmental agency that is worse 

than any other one. 

And I would hope that—I don’t care what your sex is, what your 

sexual preference is, what your race is, what your beliefs are—we 

stand together as a country and we hear that story, and we fight 

together as one Congress and make a difference at the CFPB. 

Because I think, as Mr. Mulvaney pointed out, if you are the police on the beat who are looking at everybody else to make sure 

they comply with rules in regard to these issues that are important, and you can’t get it right at the CFPB, what does that say? 

What does that say about what we believe as an institution? 

And I am disappointed. I am disappointed that we are trying to 

talk about everything else and everybody else and everywhere else 

but the people who are in front of us. The people who have been 

victimized are the ones we don’t want to hear from. We want to 

talk about everything else but you. Listen, I know you guys have 

gone to other places. And this is shocking. I am a White guy, who 

is straight, from Wisconsin. I have seven minority kids, though— 

seven—and a minority wife. 

And just because I am a White straight guy from Wisconsin 

doesn’t mean I can’t care about what happens at the CFPB. And 

I think my colleagues know that I have some issues with the 

CFPB, but this isn’t about those issues. This is about making sure 

that people are treated correctly, appropriately, and fairly. 

And I think that we should start with our government and our 

government employees, over whom we have direct oversight, and 

make sure that we have a system in place that people don’t get 

treated like Ms. Martin, Ms. Williams and Mr. Cauldwell. And if 

they do, we all hold hands and say, ‘‘You know what? Let’s focus 

on them, let’s work for them, let’s root those problems out. Let’s not 

try to cloud the issue and confuse the issue.’’ 

32 

And that was my hope for today’s hearing. I think both of you, 

for the limited questions that you had, have done a pretty good job 

talking about what has happened. 

In the 1 minute I have left, does Mr. Cordray take these allegations that were made by Ms. Martin—but also now made by both 

of you here today—does he take those allegations seriously? And do 

you believe that he is committed in his heart to making sure he 

changes the culture at the CFPB? Mr. Cauldwell, you first. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I do not, and I don’t think he ever will. It has 

been 4 years. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I do not believe that he takes these issues seriously. 

Chairman DUFFY. Do you think if we had a leader at the top who 

actually took these issues seriously, you could root these problems 

out of the CFPB? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I don’t know that the problems can ever be completely rooted out, but a person committed to resolving these issues 

would be able to show demonstrable change by now. 

Mr. CAULDWELL. I agree. 

Chairman DUFFY. Very well. I appreciate that. My time has expired. I now yield to the— 

Mr. GREEN. Point of inquiry, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman DUFFY. What is the inquiry? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I first 

want to let you know that I agree with you that we should look 

into what I call invidious discrimination at the CFPB and anyplace 

else. But here is my point of inquiry. Is the Chair going to agree 

with me and host a hearing on invidious discrimination in mortgage lending? 

Chairman DUFFY. Well, that is not a valid inquiry. And we do 

only have 5 minutes left on the clock on the Floor. 

So, the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Utah, Mrs. 

Love, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LOVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like 

to thank you, Mr. Cauldwell and Ms. Williams, for being here 

today. I know that this was incredibly difficult for you both to be 

here, and it has been incredibly difficult to hear the dialogue back 

and forth. 

I am coming in from the very beginning with fresh eyes looking 

at this. I haven’t dealt with the years of problems and discrimination. And I am still incredibly disheartened by what I am hearing 

today. 

I have just a few questions for you because I think that is what 

hearings are for: to ask questions so that the American people can 

hear of some of these complaints. Because this is their country, this 

is their CFPB. It doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to them, and they 

deserve to hear what is going on in the industries and in the areas 

that they use their taxpayer dollars to pay for. 

So how many complaints have you heard of dealing with discrimination, retaliation? How many complaints are you dealing 

with right now or have heard since you have been with the CFPB? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Currently, there are 18 formal complaints. But we 

report the complaint activity quarterly, so the No FEAR Act (which 

33 

only reports formal, not informal EEO complaint activity) indicates 

that there are 15 complaints. And then it provides a historical perspective. So for this agency, that prospective goes back to 2012. 

Mrs. LOVE. So if we have 18 that we are hearing of—people who 

are courageous enough to know that they are going to complain 

about something that will not be resolved—can you imagine how 

many we are not hearing about? And that is the thing that I am 

actually concerned about. This, for me, has nothing to do with the 

function of the CFPB. That is a different discussion. This, to me, 

has to do with what is going on inside the CFPB. And if it is going 

to exist, it is our job to make sure that we root out some of the 

problems that we have within the organization. 

In your 32 years of Federal service across 5 different agencies, 

have you ever seen an environment like this? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No. 

Mrs. LOVE. After 32 years? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. After 32 years in the Federal sector, and also 2 

years prior in the public sector, I have never seen anything like 

this in my life. 

Mrs. LOVE. I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle, and I don’t think there is anyone on either side who would 

say that I am unfair. I have love and respect for many people, by 

the way, on the other side of the aisle. I am very good friends with 

many of them. I respect them and I love them as people. I can tell 

you that right now because I have a bond with people and what 

they are really trying to do. 

And so I want you to know that I am coming from this with that 

respect. If we are not dealing with the issues that we have here, 

what kind of credibility do we have anywhere? If we are not dealing—this is what I have in front of me, and I agree. I think that 

any time we find discrimination, we should have a hearing on it, 

and we should call people out; we should weed them all out. I am 

okay with that. I am not picking one or the other. Let’s call them 

all out. 

Mr. GREEN. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Mrs. LOVE. No, I need to finish. I don’t have very much time. But 

I want you to know that my daughter is in the other room and she 

is watching what is happening here. She is 15 years old. And I 

want her to grow up in a country where she knows that someone 

is going to listen to her voice. 

I think that we have an obligation to do whatever we can to 

make sure that everyone has the right to work in a place and not 

feel as if they are going to be discriminated against or feel as if 

they talk about it they won’t be retaliated against. 

I want you to know that I am proud of who I am. I am proud 

of my color, I am proud of my heritage, I am proud of my State, 

I am proud of my country. But most of all, I am proud that I live 

in a country where I can have an opinion, where I could choose to 

be a Republican or a Democrat. I can choose my own mind and 

make my own mind up, and feel like I am heard. 

That is what we are about. This is not about one aisle against 

another aisle. This is about people, this is about our children, it is 

about making sure that we create an environment in which they 

34 

are free to be as ordinary or as extraordinary as they choose to be. 

That is what I represent and that is the country that I love. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Thank you 

for your questions, Mrs. Love. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. I would 

just note that the votes have now been called, and there are 18 seconds left on the clock. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

Without objection, the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you 

both. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 25, 2015 

36 


96998A.001
37 


96998A.002
38 


96998A.003
39 


96998A.004
40 


96998A.005
41 


96998A.006
42 


96998A.007
43 


96998A.008
44 


96998A.009
45 


96998A.010
46 


96998A.011
47 


96998A.012
48 


96998A.013
49 


96998A.014
50 


96998A.015
51 


96998A.016
52 


96998A.017
53 


96998A.018
54 


96998A.019
55 


96998A.020
56 


96998A.021
57 


96998A.022
58 


96998A.023
59 


96998A.024
60 


96998A.025
61 


96998A.026
62 


96998A.027
63 


96998A.028
64 


96998A.029
65 


96998A.030
66 


96998A.031
67 


96998A.032
68 


96998A.033