U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

65–677 PDF 2011

OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSUMER 

FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 

AND CONSUMER CREDIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 16, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 112–18 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

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 

NAN A. S. HAYWORTH, New York 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

FRANCISCO ‘‘QUICO’’ CANSECO, Texas 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

LARRY C. LAVENDER, Chief of Staff 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Vice 

Chairman 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

FRANCISCO ‘‘QUICO’’ CANSECO, Texas 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, 

Ranking Member 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

March 16, 2011 ................................................................................................. 1 

Appendix: 

March 16, 2011 ................................................................................................. 47 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011 

Warren, Elizabeth, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Department of the 

Treasury ................................................................................................................ 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Warren, Elizabeth ............................................................................................ 48 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore: 

Written statement of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions 

(NAFCU) ........................................................................................................ 82 

Watt, Hon. Melvin: 

Speech given by Elizabeth Warren on September 29, 2010, with a personal note to Representative Watt .............................................................. 84 

Warren, Elizabeth: 

Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Capito .......... 90 

Written responses to questions submitted by Representative McHenry ..... 91 

Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Meeks .......... 92 

Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Westmoreland ................................................................................................................ 97 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSUMER 

FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND CONSUMER CREDIT, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Shelley Capito [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Capito, Royce, Manzullo, 

McHenry, McCotter, Pearce, Westmoreland, Luetkemeyer, 

Huizenga, Duffy, Dold, Canseco; Maloney, Gutierrez, Watt, Ackerman, Hinojosa, McCarthy of New York, Baca, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, and Lynch. 

Ex officio present: Representative Bachus. 

Also present: Representatives Neugebauer, Garrett, and Green. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. The committee is called to order. I would 

like to welcome everyone to what I believe will be one of the most 

important hearings that the subcommittee will hold this Congress. 

We are joined this morning by Professor Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who will be answering questions from 

the members of the subcommittee about the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which we are going to call the 

CFPB, because I can’t get those four words out in great succession 

very quickly. 

So I would like to welcome her and thank her for her participation. She has made a request because of her scheduling issues; she 

can only be in the hearing until 12:30. So we want to respect that. 

And I think we will have a good and vibrant hearing and plenty 

of time to do that. 

The debate over the creation of the CFPB was intense, with 

many members having very different opinions on the best way to 

modernize the financial regulatory system for consumer protection. 

I think we can all agree that there were lapses in oversight and 

inherent problems within the regulatory structure. 

That said, many of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have serious concerns about the creation of a new bureaucracy with little congressional oversight. Many of us would have 

preferred to truly cut the red tape and create a modern regulatory 

structure that demands better communication between Federal regVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
2 

ulators and provides consumers with the tools they need to report 

fraud in the system. 

What consumers need is a regulatory structure that allows for 

them to obtain information on a variety of financial products and 

then make an informed decision about which products best suit 

their financial needs. And from reading the professor’s statements, 

she will be addressing those issues. 

One of my concerns with the creation of the CFPB was that consumers could start to lose the ability to choose from a wide variety 

of products. It would be better for all parties if a portion of the bureau’s budget was a part of the annual appropriations process. 

Claiming that congressional oversight is present because Congress 

has the ability to overturn rules, I don’t believe is the most effective way to conduct oversight. 

Additionally, I have questions about the role the staff of the bureau are playing in ongoing rulemaking. It has come to light that 

representatives from the bureau have been playing an active role 

in settlement discussions between large mortgage servicers, regular 

regulators and State attorneys general. 

By statute, the bureau will not be operational until July of this 

year. I think the involvement of bureau employees in these discussions raises some questions. I have many more questions for Professor Warren and realize that time is limited. I would like to 

thank her again for joining us today and for her willingness to 

meet so many Members of Congress. In her statement, she mentions that she has met with over 60 Members, and certainly, as one 

of those Members, I appreciate that very much. 

I would like to now recognize the ranking minority member, the 

gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for the purpose of an 

opening statement, and I am going to scoot out very quickly, but 

I will be back. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But not before I thank you for calling this hearing and for your friendship and for your leadership on so many important issues including this one. 

And thank you and welcome to Elizabeth Warren, who has been 

at the forefront of the effort to create a consumer bureau for years. 

Thank you for your service and for your commitment to all American families. You have a been a true champion for the American 

consumer and for fair and you—and I am getting reports from all 

sectors, all stakeholders and our financial community that you 

have reached out to them and you have been fair and balanced in 

your approach. 

History has long shown us that our country is at its most secure 

and most prosperous when the middle class is economically vibrant 

and growing. Recent history has also shown us that the reverse is 

true. Though it is hard to come by an exact figure, in 2008, the 

worst year of the ‘‘Great Recession,’’ household wealth in America 

fell by more than $11 trillion. Let me repeat that stunning figure, 

$11 trillion. 

And the middle class by any reasonable measure has borne the 

brunt of the economic damage. Millions lost their jobs, lost their 

homes, lost the chance to go to college, lost the hope of a better and 

brighter future. That hard and inescapable fact was one of the 

3 

most compelling reasons for the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act 

and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

We took a huge step forward toward creating a more level playing field for the American consumer and the American middle 

class. For far too long in our financial system, regulatory concerns 

about consumer protection came in a distant second or third or 

were not considered at all. 

But now, for the first time, anyone who opens a checking account 

or savings account, anyone who takes out a student loan or a mortgage, anyone who opens a credit card or takes out payday loan will 

have someone looking out for them and a Federal agency on their 

side to be fair and balanced and to protect them. 

For the first time, consumer protection authority will be held in 

one place, the CFPB, with an independent, appointed director, an 

independent budget and an autonomous rule-making authority. For 

the first time, a truly independent authority will be able to write 

new rules for non-bank financial firms including payday lenders, 

debt collectors, mortgage brokers, and other financial institutions. 

And very importantly, for the first time, consumers will have a 

seat at the table at the Financial Stability Oversight Council 

(FSOC). And the Council will have the authority to nullify any rule 

it believes will harm an institution’s safety and soundness. This 

kind of evenhandedness and commonsense oversight of our financial system with strong consumer protections will ensure the safety 

and soundness of the system as a whole and is clearly in the best 

interests of the American consumer and the driving force of the 

American economy. 

Elizabeth Warren has been at the helm since September 2010, as 

the agency gets off the ground. So I will be very interested to hear 

how the process is going as well as what the agency’s initial priorities are going to be when authority is officially transferred to the 

agency in July. 

I thank the Chair again for calling this hearing, and I welcome 

Ms. Warren. Thank you. 

Mr. ROYCE. [presiding] Thank you very much. 

Welcome, Professor Warren. It is good to see you. 

I would just like to make a couple of observations here. One is 

that a number of people in the regulatory community and a number of economists have raised concerns about some of the unintended consequences of the titles in Dodd-Frank, Titles I through 

IX, there are provisions throughout the legislation that weren’t 

really thought through. 

But Title X seems to be particularly problematic and I will explain some of the concerns. Beginning July 21st, the Federal Reserve has to transfer to the bureau whatever funds the bureau’s director has requested despite the fact that neither the Fed nor Congress will have any say into the bureau’s budget. Now, that is 

unique and that is one concern that has been raised. 

The second observation is, the byproduct of that, when you think 

it through, really raises two problems. First, this agency will be 

able to act outside of the normal appropriations process in the way 

Dodd-Frank set it up, which means that it will not be held accountable for the actions taken. And the other problem comes from putVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
4 

ting safety and soundness protection behind consumer protection in 

our regulatory structure. 

This is something you and I have talked about, but we have tried 

this model with the GSEs and it did not work. Both the acting and 

former heads of the FHFA have said that the competing regulatory 

structure, OFHEO versus HUD, contributed to the failure of 

Fannie and Freddie. And here, instead of abolishing that model, we 

have with Dodd-Frank replicated that regulatory model throughout 

the financial system. That gives cause for all of us, I think, to ponder whether this was done correctly. 

And the final concern I have with Title X is the assault on preemption. Regardless of our political affiliation, I think we should 

all be able to agree that one uniform standard is much simpler, 

much more effective. We already have 97 percent of the lawsuits 

in the world today that occur here encouraging more litigation and 

more uncertainty in this. 

I just think Dodd-Frank takes a major step back; we now have 

every single State attorney general interpreting Federal laws and 

banks’ subsidiaries will now have to comply with State consumer 

protection laws instead of one national uniform interpretation here. 

And I think that is going to be a boon for the trial lawyers but it 

will do little to protect consumers or make our capital markets 

more competitive. 

So it is my hope this committee will take the next necessary 

steps to correct these failures in the Dodd-Frank legislation. 

And we now go to Mr. Scott of Georgia for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT.. Thank you very much, Mr. Royce, I appreciate that. 

Welcome, Ms. Warren. Ms. Warren, I think that you have sort 

of a delicate balance that you have to walk here. On the one hand, 

you have to make sure that the consumers have not only the proper information to educate them about some of the practices in our 

financial services industry but you also have the requirement to 

make sure that what you do will not thwart access to capital for 

our consumers, for the banking community, particularly for small 

businesses, while at the same time give the confidence today that 

you will also protect the American consumer, protect access to capital to them, protect the consumer. 

I would also like for you to address just what impact my good 

friend on the other side of the aisle—Representative Neugebauer 

has a bill and that bill basically seeks to defund and keep you in 

Treasury. I would like for you to address just what this means to 

you. How will this either make your duties better or make your duties worse with this bill? 

And then finally, I would like for you to address the concerns of 

the banking industry. The banking industry is scared to death of 

this. They feel this is a threat, while at the same time; the banking 

industry is the heart of our economic system. It pumps the money 

which basically is sort of like the blood, the life source throughout 

our system. 

It might be good for you to address that, to ease some of the concerns within the Banking Committee that you are not the threat 

or the evil empire that perhaps some of them might think. And so, 

I think that this is a very timely hearing and you do have a delicate balance. And I hope that you will address some of these conVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
5 

cerns, and that we all will leave this hearing far more wiser and 

more confident in your ability and the operations of this new bureau, that it is not a threat. But it is a much needed solution and 

approach in a very trying economic time. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROYCE. We are going to go to Chairman Bachus. Before we 

do that, I ask unanimous consent, without objection, to allow Representative Al Green of Texas to participate in the hearing. I will 

now go to Chairman Bachus. 

Chairman BACHUS. Thank you. 

Director Warren, you are probably directing the most powerful 

agency that has ever been created in Washington. It is not a commission; it is one single person. And it will regulate all providers 

of credit, savings, payment, and consumer financial products and 

services. 

A covered person is defined as any person who engages in offering or providing a financial product or service. The definition of a 

financial product or service, you—or whomever at the agency—will 

define what that is. It is not defined in the statute. 

And also, you will have the ability to identify and ban any financial product or service that is deemed unfair, deceptive, or abusive. 

But there is really no legal definition of abusive, so you—or whomever heads this agency—will have the right to make that determination. 

And your budget, you have as much as $500 million from the 

Federal Reserve available—and you can seek appropriations of 

$200 million more. That compares to: the CFTC, which has $169 

million; the FTC, which has $300 million; and the SEC, which has 

$900 million. 

I will start by saying that no one questions your commitment to 

consumer protection, and I want to acknowledge that. But you will 

basically make the decision as to when consumers are protected 

and when they are not and what products will be offered and which 

products won’t. And you will have quite a budget. You have not 

been nominated by the President. I don’t know when that will happen or whether you will be nominated. We asked Secretary 

Geithner in September and he said that nomination will be made 

soon. It is 6 months later, and I think you would like a nomination 

to be made. Certainly, no one has been confirmed by the Senate. 

And yet, you have a lot of discretion and a lot of power, but I 

see very little accountability. We have almost just a good faith reliance on your abilities, integrity, and judgment. That is quite a burden for you and quite a burden for us and I think it adds to a great 

deal of uncertainty. So, I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

But I will tell you that since last July when we passed the DoddFrank Act, I have advocated for a commission all along. And I believe that having a board is a much better approach because I 

think it is asking one person to do too much. Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to recognize Mr. McHenry from North Carolina for 

1 minute. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I thank the chairwoman. 

When the CFPB was debated, many of us were concerned that 

your agency would have a great deal of power with very little conVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
6 

gressional oversight, after all, as the chairman mentioned, the appropriations process is one point of congressional oversight which 

you will not have. 

We were concerned that severe economic consequences would 

arise from the separation of consumer protection and safety and 

soundness duties. While that question was before us in theory, it 

is now in front of us in a very real way in the form of the recently 

released mortgage servicer settlement term sheet. 

Our economy is still very fragile and recovery in the housing 

market will play a big part in getting our Nation back on its feet. 

A number of the provisions of the term sheet could cause a crippling slowdown in that recovery. 

I look forward to speaking with you about this and other matters. 

And I appreciate, Chairwoman Capito, your holding this hearing. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Pearce from New Mexico for 1 

minute. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you, Ms. Warren, for being here today. We appreciate 

that—as everyone is saying here—your new agency is going to 

wield a lot of power. 

The basic problem in the country is that we are spending $3.5 

trillion a year and our revenues are $2.2 trillion a year. Our economy has frozen in place. The recovery is—out by regulations which 

are causing uncertainty. 

The health care regulation and the whole health care bill is causing people to lay off employees, to get below caps. It is freezing the 

creation of jobs in the medical field. 

We see the regulators freezing loans. Banks have money to lend 

and they are afraid to lend it because they are not faced with 

$50,000 fines that used to be simply be simply write-ups. 

So, I would be interested to see what you are doing to unfreeze 

the market to create certainty instead of the uncertainty that is 

coming out of the government right now. Without that, our economy is doomed to fail. It is doomed to fail if we continue on the 

path that we are on. 

I look forward to talking with you on this briefing. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. I recognize Mr. Luetkemeyer from Missouri 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And welcome, Ms. Warren. 

I understand that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

will be a self-regulated, unchecked body governed by one individual 

and funded outside the congressional appropriations process. 

This bureau promises to promulgate rules to regulate every financial product available. All American financial firms, not just the 

ones who played a role in the financial crisis, will be subject to its 

regulatory authority in some way, and all these powers will be 

given with little or no mechanism for oversight. 

As a former bank regulator, I am concerned that this agency puts 

consumer protection ahead of the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. In a time when we are just now seeing signs 

7 

of recovery, the last thing our lenders need is for an intrusive onesize-fits-all government regulatory agency submitting more regulation to them. 

I thank our witness for attending. I look forward to the hearing. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Dold from Illinois for 1 minute for 

the purpose of giving an opening statement. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And I want to thank you, Professor Warren, for your time today. 

I think all of us on the panel are certainly concerned about consumer protection. However, we can’t let theoretical consumer protection become the vehicle for categorically eliminating consumer 

choices or for effectively prohibiting new customized or sophisticated financial products. 

Doing so, I believe, would not protect consumers or jobs. Ultimately, the question comes down to, who makes the best decisions 

about financial products for consumers? Unelected or unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington or the consumers themselves? At 

both the State and Federal levels, we already have countless relevant laws, regulations, and regulators, not to mention great incentives for class action lawyers to privately enforce these preexisting 

legal standards. 

Do we really need to superimpose another multibillion dollar bureaucracy on top of preexisting legal infrastructure? If so, shouldn’t 

that new Federal bureaucracy at least be accountable to the American people through their elected representatives? 

And shouldn’t Congress give the new bureaucracy more guidance 

than relying on abstract concepts like whether a product is unfair, 

whether it is deceptive or risky? And should we also ensure that 

this new bureaucracy never jeopardizes bank safety and soundness 

in the name of consumer protection? 

Our economy is already struggling with enough uncertainty and 

dislocation. I hope that we will all carefully reflect on whether any 

theoretical bureaucratic benefits justify the risk that this new bureaucracy itself poses to consumers, to jobs and to our economic 

growth. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

And I would like to recognize Mr. Canseco from Texas for 1 

minute for the purpose of giving an opening statement. 

Mr. CANSECO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you, Ms. Warren, for being here today. 

Now, on its face, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

seems like a good idea, an agency whose mission is to protect the 

consumers. Unfortunately, like so much else within the DoddFrank bill, the unintended consequences of the CFPB continue to 

come to light. 

It turns out that consumer protection really means consumer restriction, consumer control. Having the Federal Government restrict the choices available to consumers in the name of protection 

sets a terrible precedent. 

Professor Warren has styled herself as an advocate for families. 

There is no greater advocate for families than a husband and a 

8 

wife sitting down at the table, pen and pen paper in hand, planning their family’s finances without government interference or 

oversight; there is no room for a third seat at that table, one occupied by a faceless bureaucrat who does not even know their names 

much less what is in their best interest. 

American families deserve the dignity of being able to make their 

financial decisions by themselves. Decisions about credit cards and 

mortgages belong to the family at the family table, not a Washington bureaucracy. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your comments. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

That concludes our opening statements. So, I welcome the professor back, and I look forward to hearing her testimony. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ELIZABETH WARREN, SPECIAL ADVISOR 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member 

Maloney, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify about the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

This is the first oversight hearing for the new consumer agency, 

and I welcome it. I hope you will permit me to begin with a personal note. I didn’t come to Washington because I yearned to be a 

government official. I came to Washington because Congress asked 

me here. 

My first job started 21⁄2 years ago when I was appointed to the 

Congressional Oversight Panel, where I served as Chair. At the 

Oversight Panel, we worked to produce detailed reports for you 

about TARP every single month. 

During that time, I came to Capitol Hill on many occasions to 

testify about our oversight of TARP and to answer your questions. 

You schooled me early on the importance of oversight and I believe 

in it. 

Since taking the job of putting together the new bureau, I have 

had more than 60 one-on-one conversations with Members of Congress. I have sought your good council on many issues. 

For today’s hearing, I have prepared 34 pages of detailed written 

testimony to document our start-up effort. The testimony describes 

our vision for the new consumer bureau and the progress we have 

made so far. I hope it is helpful in guiding your oversight efforts. 

The consumer bureau’s mission is straightforward—make prices 

clear, make risks clear so consumers can compare one product to 

two or three others. Fine print is great for those who want to hide 

something, but not good for families who want to know what they 

are getting into. Mortgages, credit cards, checking accounts, America’s families have a right to see the deal right upfront. 

There is another issue that I know many of you are concerned 

about, and I would like to address it head on, reports of serious deficiencies at mortgage servicers. The Department of Justice through 

the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, has been coordinating with other Federal agencies and 50 State attorneys general 

to review and address these deficiencies. 

9 

Last month, this country’s chief banking regulator came to Congress and said these deficiencies have resulted in violations of 

State and local foreclosure laws. And they have damaged mortgage 

markets and the U.S. economy at large. 

As you know, this new consumer agency is still getting started 

and doesn’t yet have any enforcement authority. Therefore, we will 

not be a party to any formal settlement with mortgage servicers. 

However, later this year, the bureau will receive authority to set 

standards for the mortgage servicing industry. For this reason, Secretary Geithner, the Justice Department and other agencies have 

requested the consumer agency to provide advice on this matter. 

We have provided our comments, and let me tell you why. If 

there had been a cop on the beat with the authority to hold mortgage servicers accountable a half dozen years ago, if there had been 

a consumer agency in place, the problems in mortgage servicing 

would have been exposed early and fixed while they were still 

small, long before they became a national scandal. 

The mortgage servicing problem illustrates the importance of 

fair, consistent enforcement. We need a cop on the beat that American families can count on. It is critical that we get this right, a 

real cop on the beat. 

Right now, our government is trying to work out a settlement to 

end this scandal. This is a law enforcement matter. It includes a 

bipartisan or nonpartisan roster of law enforcement officials at 

Federal agencies, at the Department of Justice and 50 State attorneys general. 

While it would be inappropriate for me or for anyone else in government to disclose the substance of the discussions regarding an 

ongoing enforcement matter, I do want to say that I am glad that 

the consumer agency has been able to provide assistance in this 

important matter. 

I thank Congress for creating this agency to help provide a voice 

for American families; that is why we are here and that is what 

we are doing. 

Thank you, Congresswoman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Warren can be found on page 48 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you, Professor Warren. 

I will start the questioning and then we will go through the various members. 

In reading your statement and looking at the goals for the bureau that have been lined out in your statement, you have mentioned repeatedly going back in and looking at old regulations, removing old regulations and determining which of those are obsolete 

instead of piling more and more on top. 

But as I was reading, I couldn’t really see where you would actually—actually that is an effort that is moving forward in terms of 

weeding out and regulatory reform with the existing regulations. 

Can you give me just a brief update on where you are on that 

particular issue? 

Ms. WARREN. Yes, ma’am. 

I really am glad that you asked this question because what it 

permits us to talk about is not just our overall, but we really are 

trying to look through regulations and find places where they can 

10 

be more efficient and I should mention this, our process for doing 

that. 

We have reached out particularly to community banks, to credit 

unions, to the financial industry, to people across the spectrum to 

try to learn from them where the regulations are most problematic. 

We have settled on our first priorities for this agency, and that 

is to take two forms: one is called the TILA form; and the other 

is called the RESPA form. These are forms you may remember 

from the last time you bought a home or did a mortgage refinancing, somewhere in those stack of documents that you dealt 

with. 

These are two forms that community bankers tell me have 

roughly about an 80 percent overlap in terms of the content. But 

they are written differently. They are organized differently. They 

have different pieces to them. 

And as a result, they are expensive to fill out. They have regulatory compliance cost, that is they have to show that they comply 

with the regulations. And there are real regulatory consequences if 

they get something wrong, if they leave something blank. 

In fact in several meetings, I have had community bankers and 

credit unions come to me and show me these forms and show me 

what it is like, and how much time they have to spend, and how 

much training it takes to fill these out. 

So, what we have proposed to do at the consumer agency, and 

we are very much doing this in concert with the banking industry 

and with the mortgage industry is to bring those two forms together. 

And I want to pause here to say, you would think that wouldn’t 

be a hard thing to do if there is that much overlap. Because financial regulation has been scattered, the consumer issues have been 

scattered among seven different agencies, this particular one has 

been held by two different agencies. And there have been negotiations for more than 15 years to try to merge those two forms into 

one. 

Now, they are both coming to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We are now able to work with the community 

banks and the credit unions and with others in the industry. And 

we are going to put those together. What we are looking for is a 

one-page mortgage shopping sheet that is simpler, easier, shorter, 

and more valuable to the consumer. So, lower regulatory cost, higher value to the consumer. 

We regard that as the sweet spot for this agency. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. All right. Thank you. 

I am interested in your response. You mentioned more than a 

few times community banks and credit unions. I am sure that is 

not by accident. But in creating this bureau, those entities were led 

to believe that they were going to be exempted from the purview 

of the CFPB, an impression which your comment pretty much nullifies. 

You are going to them for ideas. You are creating a form. And 

I applaud that effort, having bought homes before. It is very confusing. And nobody can read through those forms. We all know 

that. 

11 

But, I think, you are backing up what my banker, community 

banker, Charles Natty, said when he testified before this committee, that he has already had a thousand pages of new proposed 

rules. There will be thousands more. He has already had to hire 

one person in a community bank to meet these challenges. 

And I think this is a question that goes to the heart of the overreach or implicitly exempting these community banks which don’t 

have the $10 billion level. And actually, they are a part of this. 

And I will say just—because I am running out of time, I only 

have 24 seconds, in terms of the servicer issue, I am glad. Obviously, we addressed that a lot in our opening statements. You kept 

saying, ‘‘cop on the beat, cop on the beat.’’ 

The real question is, this agency doesn’t really go into effect until 

July and are you really a cop on the beat? Can you perform as the 

cop on the beat when you really haven’t had your, I don’t know, 

your training yet or you haven’t been equipped yet? 

And I think that the properness of that is what has come into 

question. 

So with that, I will ask Mrs. Maloney— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to place in the record an article that was in The Wall 

Street Journal yesterday on the CFPB’s efforts to reach out to the 

community, to the financial institutions across our Nation, and outlining some of their efforts to get input and to respond to concerns 

of the public. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you so much. 

The Dodd-Frank Act has a slew of checks and balances that are 

imposed on the CFPB so that it is accountable to the American 

people and Congress. Could you identify some of those and go 

through some of those checks and balances? 

Ms. WARREN. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I would just like to start by making the point about accountability. As I said, I came here originally because Congress asked 

me to be part of the effort to oversee TARP through the Congressional Oversight Panel. 

But I hope that every time we talk about accountability that we 

are also talking about the accountability of financial institutions, 

that there will be someone, that there will be a cop on the beat to 

make sure that they follow the law. 

So, in terms of accountability, accountability for the financial 

services industry, accountability for this new bureau, let me remind everyone of the structure of this new bureau. 

It is the only agency in all of government—let me underline 

that—the only agency whose rules can be overruled, obliterated, 

wiped out, negated by other agencies. The structure of Dodd-Frank 

is quite frankly to make this the one agency that other agencies 

can come in and say under the Financial Stability Oversight Council, ‘‘We don’t like that rule. And so, we are not going to permit 

that rule to become law.’’ 

That is not true for any other agency. 

The second thing is to focus on banking regulators. In case of 

banking regulators throughout American history, it has been the 

12 

case that banking regulators are funded outside the political process. They have always had independent funding. And the consumer 

agency, the one voice for American families, should have that same 

independence. So, I think the reasons for making banking regulators independent is pretty obvious given the way that the process 

works. 

But I will say again, here in terms of the budget, that unlike any 

of the other banking regulators, the consumer banking regulator 

will not be able to set his own budget if the budget is capped. It 

is capped by statute in Dodd-Frank. 

If the consumer agency thinks that it doesn’t have enough money 

to put enough cops on the beat in order to supervise the lending 

industry or to supervise mortgage servicers, the consumer agency 

has to come back to Congress and ask Congress for more money. 

That means in these two critical respects, the consumer agency 

is not the strongest agency in government. It is the most constrained and the most accountable agency in government. 

I should also note in the overall structure of Dodd-Frank, because I think it is important, is that there are about 18 Federal 

statutes that have bits and pieces and chunks of consumer financial protection. 

Currently, those 18 statutes are scattered among 7 different Federal agencies, 7 different agencies which have responsibility for 

rule writing and responsibility for enforcement in different bits and 

pieces. But most critically, for no agency is it of first importance. 

What the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, what DoddFrank provided in its first point was to say, we are going to take 

existing law, not change existing law, we are going to take existing 

law and we are going to gather it up. And instead of having the 

duplication, the conflict, the inability the chairman and I were talking about to be able to negotiate and get a single form, we are 

going to sweep that inefficiency out. We are going to sweep that inattention out. And we are going to concentrate on exactly one agency that will be accountable on consumer issues. 

Now, there are many more cases, and I have referred to them in 

my testimony, Congresswoman. I apologize for going on so long. 

But I think the issue of accountability is really important. And I 

just wanted to hit the three highlights. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Bachus, for questioning. 

Chairman BACHUS. Thank you. 

Professor Warren, you have participated in the foreclosure settlement discussions with the banks. And you have acknowledged that 

earlier? 

Ms. WARREN. Actually, Congressman, let me put this more clearly. We have been asked for advice by the Department of Justice, 

by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by other Federal agencies. 

And when asked for advice, we have given our advice. 

Chairman BACHUS. Sure. And did you give that as advice from 

the Consumer Financial Protection Board? Was it given—were they 

consulting you in that role? In what role were you acting when you 

say, ‘‘We were asked for advice?’’ Who is the ‘‘we?’’ 

13 

Ms. WARREN. Right now, as you know, Congressman, we are a 

part of Treasury. We are just a division. 

Chairman BACHUS. The CFPB, when you say, ‘‘we are.’’ 

Ms. WARREN. That is right. The consumer, the standing up of the 

consumer agency. 

Chairman BACHUS. So, you were asked, in your role as the 

CFPB? 

Ms. WARREN. As part of Treasury, sir. 

Chairman BACHUS. Right, as part of Treasury. 

Ms. WARREN. That is right. We are part of Treasury. And in fact, 

I think the first request was specifically from Secretary Geithner. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. And Secretary Geithner asked you for 

advice on what to do or how to structure this settlement? 

Ms. WARREN. As I said, he asked for advice about the ongoing 

problem we have with the mortgage servicers who, the OCC said, 

have violated both State and Federal law. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. And these are criminal and not civil 

enforcement procedures? 

Ms. WARREN. It is my understanding that is what the Department of Justice is dealing with. I don’t know whether there are 

criminal proceedings involved or not. 

Chairman BACHUS. Have you sat down and talked to the Justice 

Department about these enforcement actions? 

Ms. WARREN. The Justice Department asked for our advice. 

And— 

Chairman BACHUS. Yes. And again, ‘‘our’’ being the CFPB? 

Ms. WARREN. Our being a section of Treasury. 

Chairman BACHUS. A section of Treasury, okay. 

Ms. WARREN. That is right. 

Chairman BACHUS. Do you envision yourself as the acting director of this to-be-agency? 

Ms. WARREN. No, Congressman. There is no acting director. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. That is right. So, you envision yourself 

as just a political advisor to the President? 

Ms. WARREN. I actually have two jobs. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. 

Ms. WARREN. One is that I have a job as an assistant to the 

President. And then the job that is the 14-hour-a-day job and that 

is the special advisor to the—special assistant I believe it is—to the 

Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of starting the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. Have you discussed with Secretary 

Geithner or with the President who should be nominated to head 

this agency? 

Ms. WARREN. In the course of my work in trying to get this agency going, I have had many conversations with the Secretary, with 

the White House, and with others about those—the qualities of 

what might be needed, the qualities of the person who would run 

the consumer agency. And— 

Chairman BACHUS. Have they told you when they will make a 

nomination? Have you urged them to make a nomination? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I tried to make it clear that it is important that we have a nomination. 

14 

Chairman BACHUS. And will they do that almost immediately, 

would you say? 

Ms. WARREN. I would not want to describe any conversation in 

detail. But I am aware of the need for— 

Chairman BACHUS. Urgency? 

Ms. WARREN. Urgency. 

Chairman BACHUS. All right. Have they given you any indication? What if they made a recess appointment, and then that recess 

appointment was you? Would you accept that or would you say, ‘‘I 

would rather not have a recess appointment,’’ knowing the type of 

blowback from that. 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, there is a process in place. That 

much I can say for certain. I have tried to contribute what I can. 

And I understand that there will be a nomination soon. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. 

Ms. WARREN. But that is all I know, sir. 

Chairman BACHUS. Let me ask you this—the setting of mortgage 

servicing standards. 

Ms. WARREN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BACHUS. You have given input and advice into those. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. WARREN. When we have been asked by the Secretary, by the 

Department of Justice and others, we have given advice about 

mortgage servicing. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BACHUS. Okay. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Mr. ROYCE. [presiding] We will go now to Mr. Gutierrez, of Illinois. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much, professor for coming before 

the committee this morning. And I wish you Godspeed in your endeavors. 

I find it interesting that we are worried about how it is that it 

is going to become a permanent nomination to head the agency and 

what is going on within the servicers and the different departments. 

And I think we are going to find that is the theme that would 

probably be carried out most of the morning and continued out during the next couple of years. 

I am really concerned about consumers and not the financial institutions because I have a funny feeling that if we—not that I 

would do this—if we kind of carded everybody that is sitting behind 

you, the banks, and the investment bankers, and the payday lenders, and the rent-to-own. 

They are out there. And they are very well-represented. I don’t 

know how many budget makers are very well-represented out 

there. So, I am not to worry because as a Member of Congress, I 

can assure everybody here that those from financial institutions 

are ready, willing, and able, and have had a strong voice here, 

sometimes an overwhelming voice. And how it is the legislative 

process works. 

So, I would like to ask you, when we did Dodd-Frank—and I just 

want to make this clear—are you able to supervise, regulate car 

dealerships? 

15 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, no. We are not. We will not be able 

to do that. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. That is expressly prohibited in Dodd-Frank?. 

Ms. WARREN. Yes, sir. It is. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. I just wanted to make that clear for those 

of us who were here while we created your agency, the financial 

institutions including the car dealers got their take. And they got 

to be taken out. 

Now, I just want to say that as I sit around my family table, I 

assure you they were here. The banks were here. Goldman Sachs 

was here. The car dealers were here. The payday lenders were 

here. The rent-to-own were here. They were all here. 

And let me tell you, they were extremely, to my chagrin, too successful in terms of crafting. So, let’s not all be kind of crying and 

feeling all sorry and sympathetic about the poor corporations out 

there. 

I am concerned about that man and woman at the dining room 

table. And it does seems incredible to me that—let me see, before 

I bought my house, the greatest financial investment or decision I 

have to make was buying a car. And I think for a large portion of 

the American public, it will be the one instance. 

And I think for all of us unless there is something different about 

you all who sit in this committee, it is a scary proposition buying 

that car. And it is rife with lots of danger, especially financial exposure if not done correctly. 

So, I am sorry that I don’t—I am not too worried about them 

being here. 

We created the Consumer Financial Protection agency last year 

to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices 

and also to improve transparency, effectiveness, and fairness for 

consumer financial products and services. 

Some people would argue that we already have Federal agencies 

that serve as regulating bodies. Can you, Professor Elizabeth Warren, describe how is it that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is different from regulators like the Federal Reserve and the 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency? 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think the big difference is about what people want to do. The 

Fed is a terrific agency. It does a lot of things. But the people who 

go to the Fed go to the Fed because they want to do monetary policy. And that is how they are evaluated by Congress. They come 

back. They make regular reports. 

I think that it was Chairman Frank, 2 years ago, who made the 

point that in 20 years of reports from the Fed back to Congress, 

the question of consumer protection never came up. 

And so, what this is really about is saying those powers that had 

been with the Fed will now move to a new consumer agency. And 

there will be someone who will act as a cop on the beat. Who will 

be out there to look at how mortgage servicers—just to pick an example out of the headlines—are executing on their obligations, 

whether or not they are following the law. 

Someone there to watch and someone to make sure and be able 

to say to the American people that no matter how big you are, you 

16 

have to follow the rules. The laws are the laws and you have to 

follow them. 

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has done a lot of 

different kind of work. But principally, they are in the work of prudential regulation. They have watched out for how they can protect 

the financial institutions. 

The difficulty has been that in attention to consumer issues, to 

consumer products like the kinds of mortgages that made it into 

the system over the last 10 years, turned out now only to be ruinous for American families, but also ruinous for American banks. 

So, again, the idea the Congress had was to say, ‘‘Let’s take those 

functions and move them to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where we have to have a cop on the beat to make sure 

that there is someone who is going to enforce the law.’’ 

If we had had this agency, 6 years ago, 8 years ago, we would 

not be in the mess we are in today. 

Mr. ROYCE. If I could interject here, it is also government intervention. If perhaps, if we restructure things with the agency, but 

if we also did not have the temerity to believe that Congress should 

go in and muscle the market and get downpayments down to zero, 

if we hadn’t had the temerity to pass the GSE Act and allow a Government-Sponsored Enterprise to go into the business of arbitrage 

and overleverage, what I am sharing with you is that there are a 

number of factors. 

Ms. WARREN. Sure. 

Mr. ROYCE. A number of factors. And some of it is because of congressional intervention in the market. And also because Congress 

tied the hands of the regulators, and I am talking now about the 

prudential regulators, the safety and soundness regulators to actually go in and deleverage the portfolios, for example, for systemic 

risk with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

I witnessed all of that. 

I think that there is an additional consideration here. Part of it— 

and we have talked about this—is the idea that Washington can 

better understand what the consumer demands of the consumer. 

And I will just give you one example. It was with overdraft protection. The presumption here is Americans don’t want overdraft 

protection. They don’t want to be paying for that. We are going to 

have—they are all going to have to opt in to get that. 

And what did we find when the government did that? They all 

opted in. Overwhelmingly, yes. People wanted that service. But the 

presumption here was that was a waste of time. 

So I just think those—the idea that those in government will dictate what products are allowed in the market and which are not 

regardless of the willing buyer and seller, it is a consideration in 

all of these as is the consideration of the fact that your agency is 

going to be able to act outside of the normal appropriations process. 

That is unique. That is new, the idea that it won’t be held accountable for the actions it takes in terms of the budget. 

But my main concern is an additional concern and this I have 

shared with you. It comes from putting safety and soundness protection behind consumer protection in our regulatory structure. 

And as I have said, we have tried that with the GSEs. We have 

tried that where we have this goal—everybody has the right to own 

17 

a home, right? And Congress interprets that right—to me, if you 

don’t have any downpayment, you should have a right to own a 

home, right at the downpayment zero. 

If nobody will buy the subprime loan because you don’t any credit and you don’t have a downpayment and nobody will buy this 

junk called Countrywide, why not mandate with the goals, through 

HUD, that this has to happen? 

So, we do that and we set up bifurcated regulation where HUD 

is on your side of the equation here, the consumer protection, HUD 

is driving the goals. And on the other side, you had OFHEO, a 

weak regulator—the prudential regulator that was supposed to be 

regulating for safety and soundness. But guess what? They couldn’t 

step in and deleverage the portfolios, because the first consideration was not safety and soundness. 

We have set this up so that the first consideration is not safety 

and soundness. And having gone through this and watched this— 

this is my issue—we have tried bifurcated regulation, OFHEO—we 

have had the regulators, current and past, who had this particular 

responsibility both tell us, this helped to create the collapse in the 

housing market and the wider systemic risk. Yes, it did. And had 

we had a single regulator, it would have been better, okay? 

So, all of us have heard this debate and I just wanted your take 

on that— 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Congressman. I think this is a really 

important issue that you have raised. The point about safety and 

soundness I think also goes to the point about dictating products. 

I want to be really clear about the vision of this agency. 

What we are about is making the price clear to consumers, making the risks clear to consumers, making it so that the family really 

has a chance to compare two or three credit cards or a couple mortgages, to figure out two things: first, can I really afford this thing; 

and second, have I gotten the one that is best? Have I gotten the 

cheapest one or the best service or the one with the new cool 

iPhone app? 

I think Congress was very cautious on your point when it set up 

the new consumer agency. 

Mr. ROYCE. If I could interrupt you for just a second— 

Ms. WARREN. Of course. 

Mr. ROYCE. I had an amendment that would make safety and 

soundness the first priority. It would have the prudential regulators sign off on that and the Majority opposed that amendment. 

So, we weren’t that cautious because the amendment wasn’t accepted. So— 

Ms. WARREN. Although, you do remember, Congressman, that 

the way it was ultimately set up is that the other banking regulators, the safety and soundness banking regulators can overrule 

when they— 

Mr. ROYCE. With a high, very high threshold as opposed to— 

Ms. WARREN. No. 

Mr. ROYCE. I have given you the example of what really happened in the world. It happened once. It could happen again and 

it is likely to, I think. 

Ms. WARREN. And I think this is why the consumer agency was 

set up, so that its rule—whatever it promulgates can be overruled 

18 

by a combination of the safety and soundness regulators, something 

that exists literally nowhere in government. 

You know I should say because I think this is important, for families to know the price—for families to know the— 

Mr. ROYCE. We have no disagreement on that. 

Ms. WARREN. And that is what— 

Mr. ROYCE. The other implications of it. 

Ms. WARREN. —the safety and soundness and I appreciate that, 

Congressman. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Ms. WARREN. I know we have had good conversations on that. I 

appreciate it. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Professor Warren. We are going to go Mr. 

Watt of North Carolina. Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 30 seconds to 

the ranking member to clarify a point, and I will clarify it myself. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I think we should all continue to clarify that any 

action that the CFPB has written into statute can be overruled on 

safety and soundness by the Financial Stability Oversight Council—which includes the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve— 

and safety and soundness is their top priority. So, I wanted to clarify that, and I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. WATT. I thank the— 

Mr. ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WATT. Yes. For a second. If you are going to yield me some 

more time now. 

Mr. ROYCE. I will yield you more time. If I could—I just want to 

continue the— 

Mr. WATT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he— 

Mr. LYNCH. Point of order. 

Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate that. 

Mr. LYNCH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. As one of the junior members here, I am just concerned about the allocation of time. You just made a 5-minute 

interjection. 

Mr. ROYCE. You are making a good point. I go to Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. I think he identified himself on his own time for that 

5-minute interjection. I don’t think he was out of order. He never 

identified—he never yielded himself time. But I assume that you— 

Mr. MCHENRY. —consent that the gentleman may have 30 additional seconds. 

Mr. ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Watt. Go ahead with 

your— 

Mr. WATT. That doesn’t compensate me for the time that is already running. 

Mr. ROYCE. You have the 30 seconds, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. That doesn’t compensate me 30 seconds— 

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Watt, go ahead. I am going to give you your 

time— 

Mr. WATT. I appreciate that. Let me welcome Ms. Warren here 

and thank you for being here. I once thought—and I am getting a 

19 

copy of the speech that you delivered to the Financial Services 

Roundtable. I am going to put it in the record. 

I was there. I thought it was one of the most thoughtful speeches 

I have ever heard given to a group who came into the room with, 

as I will describe it, an adversarial nature, and walked out of the 

room I think feeling a lot more confident that none of the horror 

stories or horror possibilities that have been postulated and tossed 

around rhetorically in the political context were about to happen as 

a result of the passage of Dodd-Frank and the creation and expanding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

I want to compliment you—I came to you that very night and 

complimented you on the speech and asked you to send me a copy 

of it and I have circulated it to a number of the financial services 

people in my congressional district when they have raised concerns, 

many of the same rhetorical concerns that have been raised. 

I wanted to compliment you again today on your presentation, 

the 30-some pages that you have given to us that outlines how this 

agency is being stood up, and I want to recommend it to my colleagues, particularly in light of the debate that we had yesterday 

and the day before about how the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau has no oversight. 

I want to particularly recommend to them pages 18, 19, and 20 

of Ms. Warren’s testimony, that outlines in detail the amount of 

oversight that this agency has been given that far, far, far exceeds 

any oversight that any other financial regulator has, including the 

point that the ranking member just made that any rule that this 

agency promulgates can first of all like any other rule be reversed 

by Congress. And second of all—or maybe I should put it in the reverse—or the first of all, it can be reversed by this oversight board. 

And then, second of all, if we are not happy with them, we can reverse them ourselves as we can do with any other financial services 

or any other regulation that is promulgated by a Federal Government agency. 

And with that, my time is waning. I don’t know how much time 

I have left. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. You have more time. 

Mr. WATT. I do want to ask unanimous consent to put into the 

record the speech that was delivered to the Financial Services 

Roundtable leadership dinner by Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday, 

September 29, 2010, with her personal note to me saying, ‘‘With 

thanks, Ms. Warren.’’ 

Mr. ROYCE. Without objection, it is included, including the personal note. 

Mr. WATT. And I want to recommend that to my colleagues, if 

that does not set them at ease—I am probably undermining your 

credibility with the consumer groups out there—but I am speculating that at the end of this stand-up period, it may be the financial services industry that is the biggest advocate for Ms. Warren 

to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, because of her approach to these very tough issues, streamlining regulation, getting down to simple forms, the kinds of things that both 

sides of this committee have advocated and certainly have been the 

primary focus of the advocacy of my Republican colleagues on this 

committee. 

20 

This is not an ogre stand-up person, Ms. Warren, nor is it an 

ogre Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is an important 

ingredient for consumers in this country and I regret I didn’t have 

a chance to ask to ask you any questions. I am just advocating for 

it. 

Mr. ROYCE. It wasn’t for a lack of time. We go now to Mr. 

McHenry for his questions. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Ms. Warren, for being here. Now, I 

understand your protocol point you— 

Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield for just a second? Just so I 

can be clear that this is on the record. Did I get the unanimous— 

Mr. ROYCE. You got the unanimous— 

Mr. WATT. Okay. I am sorry. I ask unanimous consent for the 

gentleman to have 30 additional seconds. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Are you going to yield me 30 seconds? Thanks. 

So, you are a political appointee of the White House and a political 

appointee in Treasury. 

Now, I want to go through a scenario with you just to get context 

for folks on your position. So, walk with me here. This is more of 

a mind exercise. I want your judgment on the merits of this. 

It is shortly after the Enron scandal. Okay? So, let’s rewind. And 

the Justice Department has a special task force to go after Ken Lay 

and Enron. In your opinion, would it be an appropriate thing for 

the White House Assistant to the President for Energy Policy, who 

is rumored to be a potential nominee to head up (FERC) to call up 

the Attorney General and give advice on how to deal with the 

Enron matter on what terms to potentially settle? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, as best I remember, following the 

Enron scandal, the Justice Department asked for advice from a 

number of specialists— 

Mr. MCHENRY. Right. Did they ask Karl Rove? 

Ms. WARREN. —outside the government. I am not sure if they 

asked for his advice. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay, but I am— 

Ms. WARREN. But I do know they called my teaching institution 

and— 

Mr. MCHENRY. Right, but that is different. Look, we are talking 

about a political appointee in the White House. So I am just trying 

to see if you understand why the position you are currently in is 

controversial. Do you have an understanding that you are in a 

unique position? The fact that you are a political appointee, you 

have not have been confirmed by the Senate to head this institution that you are in all terms directing, you have no statutory authority to engage in these matters that you are engaging in. 

Do you understand why it is controversial? It is similar to—Karl 

Rove had a similar position in the White House of the last President and if he injected himself on settlement matters like this, 

there would be a hue and cry. Do you understand that this is a bit 

controversial for folks? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman— 

Mr. MCHENRY. ‘‘Yes’’ would be a good answer. 

Ms. WARREN. I work for the Secretary of the Treasury. And in 

my work for the Secretary of the Treasury, I have begun to help 

put this new consumer agency together. And we have tried to build 

21 

already a lot of expertise on a lot of different market facing issues, 

on credit cards, on mortgages, on installment loans, on payment 

systems, and on credit reporting. 

When the Secretary of the Treasury came to me and said, we 

would like your advice, I was glad to— 

Mr. MCHENRY. Don’t you answer directly to the President as 

well? 

Ms. WARREN. When the President asks for my advice, I— 

Mr. MCHENRY. Yes or no, do you answer directly to the President, Ms. Warren? 

Ms. WARREN. I answer when the President asks for my advice. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. So you—it is in your title—I am just trying 

to make sure you have an understanding of the magnitude of the 

challenge faced in your unique position here. And under what statutory authority are you currently acting? 

Ms. WARREN. I am an employee of the Treasury of the United 

States. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay, that sounds eminently reasonable. 

Ms. WARREN. And the Secretary— 

Mr. MCHENRY. I want to get to the settlement question because 

media reports are saying that there is a $20 billion—some are saying $30 billion—settlement. It is my understanding that if the U.S. 

Government reaches monetary settlements with banks, the funds 

would go to the U.S. Treasury. That is how—a very standard process over the course of our Nation’s history. 

Therefore, it wouldn’t be legally permissible for HUD or even 

CFPB or any other regulator to resolve these matters by having 

these funds directed to any other place than back to the taxpayers, 

back to the Treasury. To allocate these settlement funds, would you 

need to come back to Congress for authorization to spend them? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, we are not involved, we are not negotiating with anyone at the consumer agency. This is a law enforcement matter that is headed by the Department of Justice— 

Mr. MCHENRY. So you are not engaged in these discussions? 

Ms. WARREN. —in their financial fraud enforcement task force. 

And so the negotiations— 

Mr. MCHENRY. So you are not engaged in these discussions? 

Ms. WARREN. The negotiations— 

Mr. MCHENRY. I am reclaiming my time. Are you engaged in 

these discussions on the settlement? 

Ms. WARREN. The negotiations with private parties are entirely 

directed by the Department of Justice, by the State attorneys general, and by other Federal agencies. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So you are not engaged in these discussions? 

Ms. WARREN. We do not negotiate with private parties. We have 

been asked for advice, Congressman. And wherever we can be helpful, we are not only glad to be helpful, we are proud to be helpful. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hinojosa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Professor Elizabeth Warren, thank you for your valuable advice 

to the U.S. Treasury and to our President. I have had lots of meetings with representatives of the financial services industry: community banks; regional banks; and others. And I want to say that 

22 

Texas bankers argue that the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau will put many of them out of business. 

Bankers argue that the bureau will force banks to comply with 

consumer laws and regulations that could eliminate one key source 

of bank revenue—the overdraft fees. Banks also, both small and 

medium- sized regional banks are concerned that they might lose 

another key source of revenue—interchange fees. 

Having seen how consumers are struggling with the increase in 

cost of groceries, the increase in the cost of gasoline, many having 

lost their jobs, many having lost their homes, I can’t help but want 

to root for your work and say that consumers need some protection. 

They don’t have the lobbyists that we have seen here in Congress 

working to protect the representatives of all the financial services. 

Tell us, what we can do in Congress to ensure that this law is 

implemented and that it will help our consumers get jobs and, 

hopefully, put our country back into the prosperity that we experienced during the 1990s? 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Congressman. That is an enormously 

thoughtful and heartfelt question. And I wrestle with the issues 

you describe every single day. America’s working families have 

really been on the ropes for a long time. Flat wages and rising core 

expenses have caused many families to turn to debt only to find 

that what they thought would be a temporary help was far more 

dangerous and far more costly than they had anticipated. This consumer agency is here for American families. And I want to say it 

is also here for America’s banks. 

I met with community bankers. I was down in San Antonio, 

Texas, when Holly Petraeus, who heads up our Office of Service 

Member Affairs and I went down to Lackland Air Force Base 

where my brothers had taken basic training. And when we had the 

chance to meet with community bankers to listen to their concerns, 

it really has become clear to me that what we can do as a consumer agency to cut regulatory burdens, to try to make prices clear 

and risks clear so that competition is straight upfront in the marketplace. 

That will be good for families. It will also be good for community 

banks. It will be good for credit unions. It will be good for the financial institutions which really want to serve American families. 

Right now, we have a world in which financial institutions are 

willing to engage in pretty slick practices; are willing to put out a 

product pretending that it is at one price, knowing they are going 

to make their money back on the backend with fees and revenues 

and re-pricing. Those competitors take families away from a safer, 

sounder banking system. 

So, what I see this consumer agency as doing is speaking up for 

stronger families. And stronger families mean stronger banks. 

Stronger families and stronger banks mean a stronger economy. 

That is what we are here to do. Thank you. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you for that response. I heard my friend, 

Congressman Gutierrez, talk about all that was exempted in the 

final bill. And yet, it seems like they are the voice for medium-sized 

banks and the large banks even though they are exempted. Explain 

to why they are so concerned. 

23 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, there are a lot of people who built 

business models around the way that the world is who have figured 

out how to return incredible profits and revenue. 

Literally, in the tens of billions into the hundreds of billions of 

dollars, selling products, mortgages, credit cards, payday loans, car 

title loans, we could go on and on, remittances, to consumers without making the prices clear up front, without making the risks 

clear up front, making it impossible through the fine print ever to 

compare one product to two or three others. 

And they are very—some of them very concerned. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. We needed to hear that answer. Thank you very 

much, Professor. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Huizenga, from Michigan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate 

the opportunity. 

And, Professor Warren, I appreciate your time coming here. I 

want to actually—along that vein—explore that a little bit and find 

out, probe your views on some of these organizations and where 

they fit, and where you believe that they should fit. 

I have a background in real estate and developing. The first 

home I ever listed was a two-family home on 17th Street in Holland, Michigan, which is a very rough neighborhood, and it listed 

for $49,000. 

The families who were living there and the families who were 

looking at trying to make an opportunity for themselves really, in 

many ways, weren’t going to be able to fit into those conventional 

boxes. 

We were talking about big banks and medium-sized banks. But 

I think a number of people acknowledge that maybe somewhere 

those problems were in some of these more offline, smaller, nonFDIC type of entities that have been able to service people. 

And whether it is people holding land contracts—I know many 

people who have been involved in real estate, they will literally 

hold millions of dollars in personal funds in land contracts, for example, and some of these other non-conforming loans. 

And you hit on a phrase just in this last answer of serving America’s families. I think there are a number of people who are willing 

to do that, but they are quite afraid of some of the regulations and 

the discussions and the direction that this appears to be going that 

they may not be able to function. 

I am hoping to hear from you exactly what are some of your 

views of those less than conventional institutions and organizations 

that serve those families because whether they are vets, or whether 

they may be disabled, or whether they may be low- and moderateincome, there is a marketplace that needs to be served. How do you 

envision that being served? 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Congressman. I think that is a very 

important question, a very, very thoughtful question, and I will say 

along the same line, the first house I ever bought was for $23,300 

and we were not conventional buyers, the first time out. 

I understand the importance of being able to serve American 

families across a wide variety of circumstances. In fact, I should 

24 

say I think it has been one of the important themes that community banks and credit unions in particular were also non-bank lenders when they have come to visit have talked about with me how 

it is that they build a business model around adjusting to the different needs of different customers, that they acknowledge the importance of what they call relationship banking, that they know 

their customers and they know how to customize products. 

And I think the best way I can say this is that we are working 

with those in the industry who serve families. We are committed 

that prices should always be clear. There should never be a family 

ready to take out a mortgage who isn’t clear what the price is on 

that mortgage. There should never be a family considering taking 

out a mortgage who doesn’t get what the basic risk is, whether, for 

example, this is a fixed-rate mortgage or a mortgage that could adjust. 

There should never be the case that a family gets information in 

a way that they can’t make some kind of straightforward comparison of one mortgage to two or three others. 

That is the direction we are driving this agency. That is the direction we have been driving it since the first day I have been 

there. And I have really tried to build those structurally into the 

agency and into its entire attitude because, ultimately, that is what 

we want to be able to do. We want to make sure that there is a 

robust and diversified financial services industry there to serve the 

American people. That is our job. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. My concern is that—I appreciate that. I believe 

that people, I have sat through countless closings myself and there 

is—trust me, if anybody has either refinanced their home lately or 

if they have ever been buying anything—I see a few people, heads 

nodding in the background—there is plenty of paperwork that you 

are signing to the point of writer’s cramp. 

One, I am concerned a little bit about the redundancy and 

whether some of these things are necessary. But, two, and more 

importantly, not just the notice to the consumer, how will this work 

for the lenders, conventional or non-conventional? How will this 

work for the broker? Oftentimes, there are mortgage brokers who 

may be in there or even individuals and let’s call them an implementer of that particular deal. 

Because I will tell you that there is a number, and I have this 

man, and I will call him Mike, who takes his family’s money, has 

about $1.25 million in land contracts. He looks at this and says, ‘‘I 

am not going to be able to function. I am not going to be able to 

serve those people who couldn’t go get a conventional loan because 

of potentially the paperwork and the layering of that.’’ Now, I 

would like to hear how that would be taken care of? 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. 

Professor Warren, first I want to commend you for your work to 

merge the TILA and RESPA forms and do it in plain English, 

something that can actually be understood. I have heard from consumers that they are very frustrated. They are given a big sack of 

stuff that is useless to them because it is written in unreadable 

25 

legalese. But I have also heard from credit unions and community 

banks. 

And it is easy to forget with all the cheating that went on in the 

last decade, most people really, in the financial sector really were 

trying to make an honest living and provide a needed service and 

do right by people. They felt like they had to simply regurgitate the 

language of a regulation or a statute which is legalese and set it 

out in full. And they knew that nobody could read it. 

But that is all—they felt that was the safest thing, so if you were 

developing the forms that they feel safe to use, that people can understand is they servers to consumers and it is a service to those 

industries who are trying to make an honest living, so do that and 

do more of it. 

Second, I do remember with respect to CFPB and the first proposal, there was a requirement that financial institutions all have 

a ‘‘plain vanilla’’ product, and that got dropped fairly quickly. In 

fact, to make the point very clear, Republicans offered in the 

amendment that said that CFPB cannot require any financial institution to offer any product. 

So, when there are complaints that their solvency—their safety 

and soundness may be threatened by a consumer protection, it will 

not be that they are required to do something that would be unprofitable for them. It is that they have to do things that CFPB determines are abusive to consumers to stay in business. Is that correct? 

Ms. WARREN. That is correct, Congressman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. The argument about 

safety and about, excuse me, about consumer choice reminds me of 

the argument a century ago with respect to that, that meat packers 

made about proposed food drug laws, pure food laws that it would 

impinge upon consumers’ God-given right to buy spoiled beef. 

And it turned out that consumers did not really want to buy 

spoiled beef. They did not want that right. They wanted the assurance that they were buying pure beef. If they really wanted rotten 

beef, they could buy it pure and let it rot. But they did not particularly value the right to buy spoiled beef. 

I have yet to talk to anybody who wanted—who actually chose 

some of the products made and offered in the last decade, that suppose at one-size-fits-all, I can’t think of any size if some of those 

products fit. And I have asked before, I asked the president of the 

American Bankers Association if he could identify for me someone 

who qualified for a prime loan, but instead wanted a 2/28 with an 

increase in the monthly payment of 30 percent to 50 percent and 

then a 3 percent prepayment penalty and all the rest. And I have 

asked if he could identify for me someone who actually chose that 

knowingly. 

Or someone mentioned overdraft fees. I want an overdraft protection. I want that, but I do not want the bank to be able to process 

overdrafts not in the order in which they come in, but in the order 

that would maximize overdraft fees, or that the ATM machine, 

when I ask my balance, tells me funds available, which means how 

much could I take out in addition even though every transaction 

would have an overdraft fee. 

Do you know people who wanted that? 

26 

Ms. WARREN. No, Congressman, I do not. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. Finally, with respect, 

and I made that offer on the House Floor, that request on the 

House Floor and this committee that please if anyone knows of 

someone who really wanted those products, who got a subprime 

loan and qualified for a prime loan, let me talk to the—give me 

their names and contact information so I can talk to them and understand why they would have chosen that. And I still have not 

had any name provided to me. 

With respect, and I know that you are not playing the lead or 

you are only being consulted in the reported settlement talks that 

one of the criticisms of it is it doesn’t say what is it that the banks 

supposedly did, the servicer supposedly did. Usually, when there is 

a settlement of an enforcement action, the party being subject to 

the action does not want that in the settlement because it is bad 

press, and particularly when there are pending private claims that 

can be used against them, particularly if it is couched as a finding 

and they don’t want that, that is part of the negotiation is that 

there is no specificity, there is no detail about what the supposed 

violations are. 

Do you know if the banks or the servicers have asked that there 

be some detail of what they have done or supposedly done as part 

of any settlement agreement? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I have no knowledge one way or the 

other about that. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay, what I said about how 

settlement actions usually work, that settlement agreements usually work, is that consistent with your own experience and knowledge? 

Ms. WARREN. That is what I understand from those who do settlement negotiations. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay, thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Now, Mr. Duffy, for 5 minutes 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Good morning, Ms. Warren. 

Ms. WARREN. Good morning. 

Mr. DUFFY. I would echo your point that I think all of us here 

want to see clear prices in regard to lending and want to make 

sure that borrowers know the risk of the loan they are taking. I 

think we would all agree with you on that point. I think there are 

other issues that are flaring up here. And I don’t want to beat a 

dead horse, but I want to go back over, again, what your role is 

here with the CFPB. Would you—you said you are a political appointee but would you also agree that you are kind of the acting 

director of this organization? 

Ms. WARREN. There are truly two jobs contemplated by the DoddFrank Act. One is that there will be a director and that process is 

the President will nominate someone, and the Senate will confirm. 

The other is that it is perfectly clear in the Dodd-Frank Act that 

someone has to get this agency up and running, that is charged by 

the Secretary of the Treasury and— 

Mr. DUFFY. And that is why I am asking the question because 

as the acting director—because it is one of these situations where 

27 

if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it looks like 

a duck, it is a duck. And you are hiring the staff, you have a welcome video on the Web site, your schedule is on the Web site. I 

know you might say that you work for the Treasury Secretary, but 

I think anyone who looks at what is happening here they ought to 

agree that you are behaving as if you are the acting director and 

I think that is a concern here. 

And I think that we come back to this point of we want to see 

confirmation from the Senate of an acting director and back to one 

of the original points you said you know what, this agency provides 

the voice for the American people. I look at this Congress, we are 

the voice of the American people, and when we don’t have any 

oversight of what you are doing, I see that as incredibly problematic. 

I guess I would ask for your comments on that. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

I appreciate your interest in what is happening during this period between the time that the President signed the bill into law 

and the time that this agency receives its transferred authority 

under the statute. And it says, ‘‘The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

set the agency up.’’ And that is hiring and signing contracts and 

building the mechanism— 

Mr. DUFFY. But the Treasury Secretary is not on the Web site. 

His schedule is not on the Web site; it is you. 

Ms. WARREN. And the Secretary of the Treasury who is responsible for many things delegates to other people. And he has delegated to me, he has asked me to come in and spend my time doing 

this and I will say, Congressman, it has been a 14-hours-a-day, 7- 

days-a-week job. 

Mr. DUFFY. I agree about the 14-hour days, I know exactly what 

you are talking about, but I was asking, are you acting as the director? 

Ms. WARREN. I am acting as the delegate of the Secretary of the 

Treasury as the statute contemplates. 

Mr. DUFFY. Let me move on because I just—my concern is my 

duck analogy. It appears that you are the acting director by everything that we are reviewing, and you are aware that the FTC, the 

SEC, and the FDIC all have five-member boards but the CFPB, we 

are going to have one director, possibly you, possibly someone else. 

I guess that gives me some concern that we are consolidating 

power in one person instead of a board. 

Does that give you any pause or concern? 

Ms. WARREN. There are two models in government, the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, the primary prudential regulators, the safety and soundness 

regulators that we were talking about earlier have a single director. And I think the reason for that is the belief that, Congressman, 

having the single director when you have someone who is doing 

banking regulation makes for a more efficient operation. 

Mr. DUFFY. The FDIC, the SEC, and the FTC are involved in 

some very important areas and they are five-member boards and 

they work well, right? 

Ms. WARREN. They certainly are involved in many things, they 

are not banking examiners— 

28 

Mr. DUFFY. Would you be opposed to a five-member board? 

Ms. WARREN. And they do not run a banking staff, all I can 

say— 

Mr. DUFFY. Would you be opposed to a five-member board? 

Ms. WARREN. What I will say is that this was fully deliberated. 

Mr. DUFFY. Let me ask you this, are you opposed to a five-member board? 

Ms. WARREN. Congress made the decision to— 

Mr. DUFFY. Are you—I am not asking about Congress, I am asking if you are opposed to a five-member board? 

Ms. WARREN. I think when Congress made that decision, it was 

the right decision. 

Mr. DUFFY. So you would say yes, you are opposed to a five-member board, you think a one person director— 

Ms. WARREN. When Congress made the decision to have one regulator, they got the point. 

Mr. DUFFY. That leads me to my next point. I think you have 

seen a concern here with my colleagues that what you are doing 

in regard to consumer protection could trump safety and soundness. And we look at FSOC and it is a 10-member board where we 

need a supermajority of two-thirds to overrule your decisions. And 

you have a seat and the President has a seat, all you need is one 

more and we can’t overrule the decisions that you—I yield back, I 

apologize, my time is up. 

Mr. DOLD. [presiding] Thank you. Next, we are going to have Mr. 

Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to start off by saying thank you Professor 

Warren for your great work. I, for one, being on the Oversight 

Committee, have followed your work very, very closely. I have seen 

you in action and I think you do a wonderful job and I just want 

to—in spite of all the criticism we see here I hope you understand 

that for those of us whose primary concern is for the consumer and 

those of use who really understand what happened in this financial 

crisis, you are the champion for working people and for consumers. 

I, for one, hope that you are nominated and I pray that you are 

confirmed because I think you would be perfect for this job. I think 

you have shown a lot of courage to stand up against the folks that 

you stand up against. There are a lot of people who stand up and 

fight for the big banks. There are a lot of folks who stand up and 

fight for financial institutions and there are a lot of constituencies 

in the financial sector, obviously very heavily financed and a lot of 

lobbyists and you are right into the teeth of that. And I just, on 

a personal level, I ask you to keep at it. 

I think you are fighting the good fight. You are on the side of 

the angels and I think that you know, hopefully you will be nominated and you will be confirmed, I honestly hope for that. 

I understand this is change, and sometimes there is great investment in the status quo and we certainly see that in the financial 

services industry and people are nervous, but I do think that DoddFrank, in allowing the CFPB to be overruled by the safety and 

soundness regulators, does put a short circuit in place where if 

there was something that was unwise, not that you would do anything that is unwise but in the event that that might happen there 

29 

is a fail safe and I that review is certainly warranted and I think 

it is already included in the bill so I am encouraged by that. 

Look, the damage done to American families and the American 

taxpayers by this recent financial crisis cannot be overstated, but 

one of the things that I worry about greatly is the integrity of our 

financial markets. There has been such damage to the integrity of 

the U.S. financial markets and reputational damage done to our 

markets that investors, consumers I think feel that the current arrangement is rigged. That the banks run the show and with insider 

trading and these super fast computers that really they don’t believe that the system is honest, they think it has been compromised 

greatly. 

And they are hoping that you might be part of that solution in 

rebalancing of the scales. I certainly hope that. The complexity of 

the markets is just growing exponentially with derivatives and 

structured products and it is beyond the basic understanding of the 

average investor or the average consumer. 

And what I am asking is for you to try to explain to consumers 

who are out there about your role as someone who, if confirmed, 

might help rebalance the power there between consumers and financial institutions. 

Ms. WARREN. I appreciate that, Congressman. I think you have 

put it exactly the right way when you talk about balance, that the 

banks will be heard from in Washington and the political process. 

The question is whether ordinary families will be heard from and 

quite honestly whether or not those who actually want to serve 

those families will be heard from, community banks, credit unions, 

servicers who want to provide good products. 

What I see this about is that this is about this agency, it is about 

a real belief in markets so long as they are honest. So long as you 

have a cop on the beat who says, there is that law down here, everybody, I don’t care how big you are, I don’t care how powerful you 

are, I don’t care who your friends, everybody follows the law. That 

is just the deal. 

And the laws are directed toward you folks so you can actually 

have a real chance in this financial marketplace, at least in the 

personal part of this, the borrowing and your own personal financial management because the costs ought to be clear, the risks 

ought to be clear. It ought to be that you can compare one product 

to two or three others. That is really all this agency is about. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time has 

expired. I yield back. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you. 

Next, we will hear from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Canseco, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CANSECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to 

yield some of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I will only take 30 seconds. And I want to 

tell the gentleman from North Carolina, today is your lucky day. 

I would like to present this evidence to Ms. Warren and ask her 

if it would prevent this from happening. I sought out a loan, a second mortgage to go into business. It was a 5-year prepayment penVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
30 

alty, I paid 6 points up front. I probably paid 4 percent or 5 percent 

more than the going rate to be able to get a second mortgage on 

my home to go into business. And I am proud to tell you that I was 

able to repay that. I was able to fulfill my dream of being in business for myself and I have been in business for myself for 30 years. 

And what you are talking about today and what Mr. Miller is 

talking about today is preventing people from being able to fulfill 

the American dream when they know themselves that they can do 

it. They can meet the challenge but yet the government is going to 

tell them it is a bad deal, they can’t do it, and not allow businesses 

to make those kind of loans. That is wrong. 

Thank you. And I will yield back. 

Mr. CANSECO. Thank you, sir. 

Professor, I appreciate your being here today and I also appreciated your visit in my office some time ago when we had a very 

nice friendly discussion about San Antonio and our home. And I 

thank you for being here today. 

But in regards to San Antonio, I spoke with a group from San 

Antonio that represents a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of young businesses that are just getting started. And one of the things about 

it is that they used a lot of their own personal credit in order to 

finance these things. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates 

that more than 47 percent of small business owners use personal 

credit cards as opposed to business credit cards. That is just the 

nature of start-up companies and the beauty of the American 

dream. 

How will the CFPD distinguish between an individual using 

credit cards to buy fancy clothing and a small business owner obtaining credit to expand his business? 

Ms. WARREN. So, Congressman, again, thank you for your hospitality. It was good to be able to visit with you and to be able to 

visit about San Antonio. 

I want to be clear about what we are trying to do with the consumer agency. We are trying to make the cost clear up front. We 

are trying to make the risk clear. We are trying to make it easy 

for anyone to be able to compare one product to another. I believe 

in small businesses. I have not only studied small businesses for 

a long time, one of my three brothers has been a small business 

owner all his life and supported his family from his efforts. And I 

know how small businesses struggle. 

Mr. CANSECO. Pardon me for interrupting your answer but how 

are you going to distinguish that individual who is using his personal credit for business from someone who is using it for personal 

use? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, perhaps the distinction you want to 

make and quite rightly is that business loans are excluded from 

any oversight by the Consumer Agency. But let me make the point 

that we are here to make credit clear in terms of its price, not to 

ask what you bought with it. It is not our question about whether 

you bought good-looking clothes or ugly clothes. That is just not— 

Mr. CANSECO. But what is it going to mean to the more than 47 

percent, almost 50 percent of business startups and business people 

who use that personal credit for their business that they are putting skin in the game? If your agency comes in there and regulates 

31 

their activities, what does it mean to that private sector that is 

growing and it is going to be contributing so much to job creation, 

innovation and growth and opportunity in our community? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I heard—I think it was 2 weeks 

ago—from a group representing small businesses, and small businesses are very concerned because when they finance their business activities, as you rightly point out with credit, wherever they 

can get it, the prices are not made clear, the risks are not made 

clear. 

What this agency is about is about making those prices and risks 

clear. That is good for American families, but believe me, it is even 

better for small businesses. They need to know how much money 

they are spending. 

Now, business loans will be segregated, Congress made that 

choice. But in personal credit, it is about costs and risks and making them clear. 

Mr. CANSECO. Let me ask you another question because I am 

running out of time here. If I run a bank that has over $10 billion 

in assets or we originate mortgages, exactly what part of my business practices would your agency not regulate? 

Ms. WARREN. We are not the safety and soundness regulators, 

the consumer agency does not regulate the ordinary banking activities. Those are regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency. What we do is we do what was clearly sorely missing 

over the past few years. That is, for example, in an area like servicing home mortgages, we make sure that the servicers are following the law. 

We make sure that when someone is putting out a new mortgage, originating a new mortgage, what are the obligations to comply with—and RESPA. That is why we talked about how, with the 

help of the banks—sorry—we are figuring out how to combine 

those two forms, make those forms smaller and come earlier in the 

process when they will be helpful to consumers. So we are focused 

on the consumer credit product and whether or not those who are 

using them to lend money are actually following the law. 

Mr. CANSECO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

Before I recognize Mr. Green, I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert the comments letter on the CFPB from the National 

Association of Federal Credit Unions. 

And I now recognize Mr. Green for 5 minutes. 

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

and the ranking member for allowing me to have the unanimous 

consent to be a part of this most important hearing. 

I would also like to thank Ms. Warren for her service to her 

country. 

Ms. Warren, I believe that you are doing a very difficult job and 

I trust that you will continue to serve your country as well as you 

have. 

I would like to, if I may, Madam Chairwoman, with unanimous 

consent, place in the record a report from Americans for Financial 

Reform. It is a progress report, dated January 21, 2011. And I 

would note that on page four of the report, make that page five of 

32 

the report, there is an indication that there is a need for a permanent director. I mentioned this only because it is apparent that 

these 250 organizations and individuals do not see Ms. Warren as 

a permanent director, they see her as a transitional person helping 

us to establish an organization. 

So if there are no objections, may it be submitted for the record, 

Madam Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

I would like to now move to Ms. Warren’s report, page 30 of her 

report that she has submitted to us, reads, and I will not read it 

in its entirety, but it reads, ‘‘Community bankers and credit unions 

have also made it clear that they face a regulatory crisis.’’ And you 

go on to indicate that this is because they can’t afford to hire an 

army of lawyers to investigate the complex rules and navigate 

them. 

You indicate that the importance of small banks and credit 

unions cannot be overstated, they are disproportionately the providers of credit to small business. And they are therefore part of 

the chain toward higher employment and economic recovery. 

I concur with your comments. I think the community bankers are 

exceedingly important because of the relationships that they have 

to small businesses and the credit unions as well. 

I had a good many of them visit with me and they have made 

it very clear to me that there is a crisis that they perceive. There 

are many who fear that they may be regulated out of business. I 

see this as something that impacts both consumers as well as small 

banks because without the small banks, the consumers don’t benefit from what the small banks can provide. 

My question is, first, is it possible within the bounds of ethics for 

us to work together to help these small banks continue to provide 

a good service for consumers within the bounds of ethics? And I 

don’t want to do anything that is unethical. 

And also, how are you immediately embracing this crisis that 

they perceive as one that may cause them to cease to be able to 

function as they function currently because of the additional cost? 

Ms. WARREN. Yes. Congressman Green, thank you. Thank you 

for the thoughtful comments and the thoughtful question. 

I see this very much the same way. I worry about our community 

banks. I worry about our credit unions. I worry about our smallest 

financial services providers because many of them are good partners to their customers. And they want good long-term relationships. They are clear about their product. They are willing to make 

prices clear up front, to make risks clear up front. They can’t thrive 

by pretending to sell at one price and then mugging people after 

they get them in the door. 

But they are worried about a challenging regulatory environment. We are doing what we can on the consumer side, in the consumer agency, on the consumer product. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me suggest this because I have one additional 

thing that I must do. Would you agree that within the constraints 

of ethics, we will work to try to make sure that the consumers and 

the banks or credit unions are protected? 

33 

Ms. WARREN. Absolutely, Congressman, I should have given a 

shorter answer. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Let me quickly state this. In your report, on 

page 18, you indicate in addition to the fundamental constraints 

that Congress has imposed and you have talked about Dodd-Frank, 

you indicate that specifically you are required to submit—the agency is required to submit annual financial reports to Congress. You 

have to report to Congress twice a year to justify your budget. The 

director, whomever that happens to be, has to testify before and reports twice each year regarding the activities of the agency, you indicate that the GAO has to conduct an audit each year of the agency. You indicate that you have to submit financial operating plans 

and forecasts and quarterly financial reports to the Office of Budget and Management. And you indicate that oversight is also available through the Financial Stability Oversight Council. 

Madam Chairwoman, I just mentioned these things because I 

want to allay some of the concerns with reference to the oversight 

of the organization, clearly you have more oversight than most Federal agencies. 

And I thank you for the time. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Pearce, from New Mexico, for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I have a lot of questions, so I recommend a second round if we 

get the opportunity. A couple of observations in that—I read the report here and I see the word straight up, too complicated, clear, 

concise. And two, I don’t have much interest in what our colleagues 

up behind me were asking about the confirmation process, but you 

are demanding something from the people you enforce things over 

that you are not willing to give yourself and that is straightforward, clear, concise answers. And that has created lot of the repetitive questions. That is just an observation. 

The second thing is that I hear you testify, I know you are talking about the protection of consumers and you build this process 

in, as if the government agency is going to solve the problem. And 

I would like to believe in it but frankly I am going to think about 

the SEC and Mr. Madoff and I am going to believe that in 2 years, 

your agency is going to be operating exactly the same. That is simply out there grinding wheels away and that it might also itself fall 

short of being this angel. I have heard a lot, it was really champion 

and these words that we have heard. 

So with—maybe you are going to be the government agency that 

actually does this work. The idea that you propose on page four 

that few of us seriously believe that we have the marketplace that 

American families deserve. 

Now, when I go to the bank and ask for a loan, the first thing 

I go to actually has fairly clear APRs and everything. It is clear, 

it is concise. And so what you are trying to enforce is to an extent 

consumers who don’t like the answer they get from institutions 

that have paperwork that is clear and concise. 

And so you are going to enforce the standard on the lending institutions and those institutions which are only answering the demands of people to come and get products, that is because they 

34 

can’t get the products somewhere else and they are demanding 

these and you are going to stop those. 

I remember a day when I was in the State legislature where we 

wanted to regulate payday lenders, those people who charge $20 

for loaning you $100 for a month. And I too felt like that was too 

exorbitant, it was thousands of percent. I got back to my hometown 

and one of the guys who worked in the oil field came up to me and 

asked, ‘‘What damn business is it of yours, if I borrow $100 today, 

and I want to pay back $120?’’ 

That still rings clear and I think maybe at some point you should 

ask that to your agency. So the question that I have, it is my understanding from what you are saying that we would not be here 

payday, we would not be here, we would—if the rules, the basic 

rules of the road in place for mortgages were consistently enforced, 

protecting consumers, we would not be here. 

So I get from that you believe that there was no enforcement in 

the—that there were no rules for mortgages. Is that right? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I think it is fair to say that this economic crisis started— 

Mr. PEARCE. No, that I am asking—you say that if rules had 

been enforced, that we would not be here. So you are saying the 

FDIC and the OCC didn’t do their jobs? That the Real Estate Settlement Protection Act did not do its job? You are telling me that 

nobody in the enforcement of mortgages did their jobs? 

Ms. WARREN. I think the evidence is fairly clear that they did not 

do their jobs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. Is that in regard to the superficial instruments, the 

bonds? 

Ms. WARREN. No. 

Mr. PEARCE. Or was it maybe that the government asked banks 

to give loans to people who could not afford it, which they did, the 

government insisted that banks give loans to people who could not 

afford it. No loan, no payments were ever made on those. Those 

loans without the ability to ever be repaid, without one payment 

ever being made were then lumped into bond and then the exotic 

instruments, the CDOs and the MBSs were created out of that, 

that is what was not regulated. 

But the banker down in Main Street of Hobbs, New Mexico, I 

will guarantee you still risks losing its bank today if he gives a 

product that is not in compliance. 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I think we can agree that the crisis 

in home mortgages and the rest of this economy was not caused by 

community bankers, it was not caused by credit unions; it was 

caused one mortgage at a time with mortgage brokers and who put 

out products that were extraordinarily dangerous and often deceptive to those who took them. 

I think there is ample evidence of what went wrong on the front 

end of this crisis. 

Mr. PEARCE. And there is ample evidence that the rating agencies rated those as triple AAA and I don’t see that anywhere in 

your scope of work. And I do have a second round, if we get there, 

Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

35 

I would like to recognize Mr. Luetkemeyer for 5 minutes for 

questioning. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Warren, in your testimony, in your written testimony, you 

indicate that many of the rules make it very non-competitive for 

community banks, credit unions and others to compete, and your 

words are, ‘‘put them at a competitive disadvantage.’’ 

If we can choose a better way, can you tell me what that better 

way is? 

Ms. WARREN. I think that the example of the first priority of the 

new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of the 

better way. We are going to take two fairly long, fairly complicated 

forms that have substantial overlap that two government agencies 

have negotiated or been at war, depending on your metaphor here, 

for more than 15 years about combining those forms. And because 

it comes to one agency, we are going to combine the forms. And we 

are using the help of the community banks and the credit unions 

and the mortgage brokers, the people on the frontline who originate these mortgages to find the most effective, the most efficient 

way to do that and give us a smaller one-page mortgage shopping 

sheet that might actually produce some value for the family. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Whenever you do this, are you going 

to look at the cost-benefit of that rule, that new form that you are 

going to put out, of what it is going to cost the institution to comply 

with? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, we will certainly look at the costbenefit. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. If you are going to look at it, can you 

explain to me on what basis you would throw a rule out or not 

make a rule? Can you give me the numbers? Is it—because I can 

give you numbers all day long. I had a community banker drop in 

front of me about 2 weeks a sheet of paper, as he said, ‘‘Blaine, this 

is what it costs me to comply with one rule—$16,500 per year.’’ 

And it is a small institution. Another one told me it cost over 

$100,000 a year to comply on one rule. 

Ms. WARREN. Yes. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Now, you multiply that by all the banks in 

the country. At one point are you going to say this rule, the costbenefit of it is not worth implementing? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I am glad you raised the problem of 

regulatory burdens for our community banks. And I remind you of 

course that the community banks are struggling because of the regulations they face elsewhere in the system, not because of regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Indeed, we have worked with the community banks, we have 

worked with— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Ma’am, you have spent 30 seconds of my time 

not answering my question. I am sorry to interrupt here, but I 

want a specific answer to a specific questions. At what point are 

you going to say this rule is too costly to implement, it doesn’t yield 

any benefits, it costs too much to implement? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, we are required by law to do a costbenefit analysis. 

36 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I know you are. I read it in the testimony. 

I understand it. 

Ms. WARREN. I am sorry. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. At what point are you going to say, no, this 

rule is going to be thrown out? 

Ms. WARREN. When the costs outweigh the benefits, Congressman. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. When it costs $100,000, when it costs 

$1 million, when it costs $1 billion for the industry, at what point 

are you going to say no, we can’t do this? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, that is what a cost-benefit analysis 

is. When the cost outweighs the benefits— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Ms. WARREN. —then we will not engage. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. But you don’t know at what point that is yet? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I think your question about the 

point is an important one. We are communicating right now with 

the community banks, with the credit unions about the changes 

they want to see because they think there are cost savings for them 

that also benefit consumers by starting earlier on the problem, not 

when we have a— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Absolutely. I agree with you 100 percent. And 

my concern is that we are going to say, we are going to put a new 

form in place here but instead of combining two forms, now you 

have the front and the back that you have to work on. And we 

haven’t done a thing to improve our situation, it still remains more 

costly. 

Let me move on to another question before my time expires on 

me here. 

You are going to be the new examiners on the block. Are you taking over all of the Consumer Financial Protection examinations, 

from all other agencies across-the-board? Are you going to be just 

another form that the institutions are going to have to deal with? 

Ms. WARREN. For all— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay, in other words, for FDIC, are you taking away all their consumer complaint stuff? 

Ms. WARREN. No. For the— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So this is going to be a second exam that is 

coming forth? 

Ms. WARREN. For all financial institutions with more than $10 

billion in assets, the new consumer agency will be the primary regulator and supervisor. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. But the other ones are still going to be 

in place and they are still going to come in with the compliance 

exams as well? 

Ms. WARREN. No. There will be something called the transfer 

date. And the transfer date is July 21st of this year, and that is 

when the other seven 7 stand down in terms of their responsibilities for enforcement and rule-writing— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. In terms of— 

Ms. WARREN. —on the 18 existing Federal statutes and the new 

consumer agency stands up. This is like a relay race. 

37 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. But in terms of enforcement, are you going 

to be doing the same thing that the other agencies are doing or are 

you going to be doing something different? 

Ms. WARREN. No, we will be doing something different. We will 

be enforcing. They will no longer be enforcing the laws that we will 

be enforcing. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So you are going to come in and enforce 

them? Are you going to be coming in to help the institutions understand them or are you going to be slapping more fines? 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Your time has expired. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. Dold, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And I want to thank you, Professor Warren, for taking the time 

to be with us today. 

I would like to just continue down the vein and in terms of how 

you think this is going to impact small businesses. And so if I can, 

for consumers who are out there, if a consumer voluntarily enters 

into a consumer transaction with full disclosures and full information, are there any reasons on which you or the agency could possibly prohibit, penalize, or invalidate the transaction, and if so, 

what are those possible reasons? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I have tried to make it clear. What 

this agency is about is about making the prices clear, the risks 

clear, making it easy to compare one product to another. We would 

have to go through all 18 statutes to see if there are already certain prohibitions. 

But the point is to get an informed consumer because I believe 

that American families are good at making decisions when they 

have information up front. 

Mr. DOLD. I couldn’t agree with you more. And this is about protecting consumers. But I guess my question is, is that the way the 

statute is written and the law, that there is going to be one person 

in charge? And that person, according to the way it is written, anything that is risky or potentially uncertain isn’t going to necessarily 

be—or could be subject to be invalidated? And so I am trying to get 

a better handle on what will you determine is going to be a risky 

proposition. 

Again, for someone who is informed, an informed consumer who 

may choose to enter into a financial transaction or a purchase of 

a financial product, that for some reason the Consumer Protection 

Bureau determines is risky, is that going to be invalidated? 

Ms. WARREN. I think perhaps it might be that you are referring 

to the authority that is currently with the Federal Reserve, often 

referred to as UDAP, unfair and deceptive practices. So the authority is currently there in the statute, it is there. In fact—I don’t 

know if it is in all 50 States, but in most State laws the capacity 

to say certain practices are deemed unfair and deceptive, there is 

a long case law on this and a long history on it. That will come 

to the CFPB, it will be part of our responsibility to enforce those 

laws, Congressman. 

Mr. DOLD. Can you give me any sort of an idea in terms of how 

do you plan to reduce the regulatory burden on small institutions 

by adding yet another regulator into the mix? Right now, when I 

38 

talk to people back in my district all the time, it is the uncertainty 

that is out there. Uncertainty is preventing people from investing; 

they are unsure about what tomorrow will bring and so therefore 

they don’t. 

And what I see this doing is, again, creating another level of uncertainty. And especially with the amount of power that is being 

put into the bureau, they are just going to—my take is that they 

are going to wait and we are not going to have investment. And 

this could be potentially problematic. So I would just be interested 

in your take on that. 

Ms. WARREN. No, I appreciate it. And I appreciate the concern 

that this question expresses. We will take transfer of the authorities that are currently there in seven other agencies. We will put 

them in one agency and we will hold that agency accountable, accountable ultimately to the American people. 

And what we will do in this process and what we are trying to 

do in this process is reach out to all potential stakeholders. We 

have talked with community banks. We have talked with credit 

unions. We have talked with very large financial institutions. We 

have talked with some non-bank lenders. 

In fact, Congressman, we have even gone out and had extensive 

conversations with the investment community, those who invest in 

financial institutions because they have had questions about how 

this new agency would be setup. And it has been very interesting 

to find where there are a lot of allies for this agency, the investors 

for example who have said, ‘‘If you are going to make these consumer products a little more obvious for consumers to understand, 

that dialed risks out of the system overall. And we think long-term 

good for banks and long-term good for our investors.’’ 

Mr. DOLD. I appreciate that. And certainly, we want more transparency. But I want to get to accountability if I can. 

Ms. WARREN. Sure. 

Mr. DOLD. I anticipate that people make mistakes. And certainly 

with one individual, the chances of making mistakes are probably 

greater than several people making mistakes. 

In terms of oversight, can you tell me, right now my understanding is that FSOC has a 10-person board, has the ability to basically overrule decisions done by the bureau. Is that correct? 

Ms. WARREN. Madam Chairwoman, may I answer? 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Yes. 

Ms. WARREN. The answer is, yes, the FSOC can overrule this 

agency and no other. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. But that would be with a two-thirds majority, correct? 

Ms. WARREN. I believe it is with the two-thirds majority. Of 

course that consumer agency doesn’t vote. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Right. We have Mr. McCotter, from Michigan. 

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

yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. My only question really deals 

with the idea that we are protecting consumers and that we are 

doing a thing that either way ups their ability to pay their mortVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
39 

gages. And the more else, is that here, that we are here to protect 

the consumer from fraudulent practices. 

Ms. WARREN. Yes, we are here to make the prices clear, risks 

clear, make it easy for consumers to compare one product with another. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. So again, going back to your statement on 

page eight, the thing that have caused the situation to get imminently worse, it is up in the middle, there have been basic rules 

of the road and blah-blah-blah, that statement. 

I wonder if you are going to be the angel, be the champion of the 

consumer as it comes to inflation. As I look at the Federal Reserve 

printing $2.6 trillion, as I look at the price of vegetables going up, 

as I look at the price of gasoline going up, I realize one of the most 

fraudulent practices right now that is defrauding the consumers, 

that is taking trillions away from their bank accounts is the fact 

that they are printing money. 

So is your consumer protection going to log into the heavy duty 

fight or you are going to fight—are you going to take on the Fed 

for printing money or is that something that you don’t see your role 

in? 

Ms. WARREN. I am sorry, Congressman, but our job is not in 

monetary policy. 

Mr. PEARCE. It is to protect the consumer. And anyone who defrauds the consumer, I thought we are going to protect. I was just 

wondering. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. And I thank the gentleman. 

And I thank you, Ms. Warren, for being here today. 

Just a couple of quick notes. We have earlier heard about how 

anyone who loaned money that was considered morally reprehensible in many ways have been carved out of the Dodd-Frank Bill. 

And in the spirit of St. Patrick’s Day, I would like to think that 

if that was the case, there were no nefarious motives on the part 

of the Democratic Majority and the Democratic President who allowed it to happen. 

Secondly, we had heard from another one of our colleagues about 

how spoiled beef was once opposed by people who wanted to eat it. 

And as a fair point, no one wanted to eat it. But what happened 

so often is that where there is legitimate concern for governmental 

action to prevent this social harm, we wind up going from the inspection to prevent spoiled beef at the Federal level to the elimination of happy meals at municipal levels decades later. 

In your eyes, with the fact that we as Congressman, that the 

statute does not annually appropriate to your entity, what do you 

believe is our—it is a two-point question—what are the appropriate 

limits in your mind or the agency that it will never do and what 

is the appropriate role of congressional oversight and how would 

we make our voices heard, absent the Comptroller of the— 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your concern about oversight and appropriations. As you know, none of the 

banking regulators are part of the appropriations process and they 

never have been as a matter of history. Congress has repeatedly 

made a very wise decision that pulling a banking regulator, someVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
40 

body who is going to have to stand up to the richest and most powerful and say sometimes no is not a good idea. And Congress has 

never done that. 

As it stands right now, the other banking regulators stay outside 

the process, the CFPB is the only one of the banking regulators 

who actually does not have full control over its own budget. Its 

budget is effectively set by the Fed unlike the Federal Reserve’s 

ability to set its own budget, the FDIC’s ability to set its own budget, the OCC’s ability to set its own budget and the OTS’s ability 

to set its own budget. 

So the consumer agency is more constrained on the financial side 

and it is subject to being overruled by FSOC unlike any agency 

anywhere else in government. I am convinced that this consumer 

agency will be a voice on behalf of American consumers. But Congress quite reasonably, in setting this agency up, made it the most 

constrained of the Federal agencies. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. I appreciate that but not necessarily by us. 

Ms. WARREN. Well— 

Mr. MCCOTTER. You happen to be, and to the Constitution, that 

entity within the Federal Government that is most directly accountable to the people, the House of Representatives and in conjunction with the United States Senate. So I would think maybe 

the richest and most powerful people, but we can differ on that. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Mr. Manzullo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

If someone calls the CFPB with a complaint about a mutual 

fund, will that person be directed to the SEC or would the CFPB 

investigate this complaint instead? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I believe that the boundaries on our 

jurisdiction are pretty clear. And that the Consumer Agency does 

not do— 

Mr. MANZULLO. You don’t get involved in it? 

Ms. WARREN. —investment funds or other similar— 

Mr. MANZULLO. They don’t get involved with investors? 

Ms. WARREN. I think that investment issues are left to the SEC? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay. In your letter to Congressman Randy 

Neugebauer dated January 31st of this year, your concluding paragraph says, ‘‘I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and good counsel 

regarding the task ahead of us. Building this new bureau is exciting and challenging. I hope we could work together on behalf of the 

millions of Americans, large banks, community banks, credit 

unions, and investors who are counting on us to build a strong, 

independent, effective and fair bureau that makes the consumer 

credit markets work for everyone.’’ 

You used the word ‘‘investors.’’ 

Ms. WARREN. I did, Congressman. And I have been reaching out 

to investors since the first— 

Mr. MANZULLO. But you just said that investment would be left 

to the SEC. 

Ms. WARREN. No. You asked me if there were consumer complaints about an investment— 

Mr. MANZULLO. Right. 

41 

Ms. WARREN. —would it be part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Right. And you said no. 

Ms. WARREN. And the answer is no. The investors I have been 

speaking with are those who invest in financial stocks. I have been 

meeting with them because I actually believe they are stakeholders. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Invest in financial stocks where they would also 

be covered by the SEC. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. WARREN. If you will permit me to explain, investors in financial stocks want to understand about what space— 

Mr. MANZULLO. I understand that, but the issue is the jurisdiction of the CFPB and the SEC. Now, who has jurisdiction over this, 

you or the SEC? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, it is clear that the SEC has jurisdiction if the consumer has a complaint about an investment— 

Mr. MANZULLO. So then you will stay—you will completely stay 

out of that whole area? Would you— 

Ms. WARREN. Of course, Congressman, because Congress has 

made it clear what that boundary is. Those who are investing in 

bank stocks, the same way that they are to invest in airplane 

stocks. 

Mr. MANZULLO. But that is not your jurisdiction. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. WARREN. My jurisdiction is consumer financial products and 

among the people who are interested in—products. 

Mr. MANZULLO. I understand that. I thought you answered the 

question clearly, and, now, you are backtracking on it. 

Ms. WARREN. No, Congressman. I am not backtracking at all. I— 

Mr. MANZULLO. Does the SEC have jurisdiction and the ability 

to protect people who buy stocks? 

Ms. WARREN. It is the jurisdiction of the SEC to deal with consumer complaints about investments, absolutely, sir. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay. So then, therefore, there would be no room 

for the CFPB to be involved in that issue. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. WARREN. In the issue of consumer complaints about stocks, 

there is no reason for the consumer agency to be involved, yes, sir. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Alright, so you are going to stay away from that 

area? 

Ms. WARREN. We will not go beyond our jurisdiction. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay. The other question I have is, in going 

through your testimony, I just—it is this, on page six, at the bottom, pages of fine printed long passages of legalese, and they serve 

some lender, but they can make it impossible for the customer to 

know what is really going on. This is wrong. The average consumer 

who takes out credit should not have to struggle to understand the 

basic agreement. 

Wouldn’t you agree that the legalese that the banks and credit 

unions are using is there because of legal requirements or regulations? 

Ms. WARREN. Sometimes, Congressman, the fine print is there 

because of regulations and that is— 

Mr. MANZULLO. —when I practiced law, I closed a thousand real 

estate transactions or more, we had one page. I could close it in 20 

42 

minutes. Now, Regulation Z in HUD–1, multiple pages, it takes 2 

hours or more. So the consumer knows less because he can’t read 

through all this stuff. But how are—they are going to go up against 

all these other agencies that are in each of these rules and regulations and just say this is unreasonable, let’s go back to one page. 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, when the transfer date comes and 

we pick up from the other seven Federal agencies— 

Chairwoman CAPITO. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. WARREN. Sorry— 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you to everybody. 

Mr. Ackerman, for 5 minutes? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. 

I am buoyed by the notion that anybody who could withstand the 

kind of badgering in defending yourself and the position and the 

agency it is going to be doing a very, very incredible job in defending the consumers of this country against those who would exercise 

the amount of greed that we have seen exhibited. 

Let me yield a moment or two to my friend, Mr. Miller from 

North Carolina, who has some answers and an explanation that he 

would like to— 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. 

Just a quick question, at the beginning of the last decade or 

early in the last decade, I was careful to distinguish subprime lending and predatory lending, and not all subprime was predatory; 

and then predatory took over and—out all the others, all the wholesome, legitimate subprime. 

I earlier asked you if you knew of anyone who qualified for a 

prime mortgage and got a subprime mortgage, and I outlined some 

of the predatory terms, and you said you did not. The gentleman 

from Georgia, I think in the spirit of helpfulness, offered himself 

as an example. He then outlined the terms of the mortgage that 

he had once gotten. It was hard to tell what his circumstances were 

at that time what term made me think it probably was predatory 

and that would have a 5-year prepayment penalty. 

So I am sure he thinks he is a smart businessman, but they 

probably snickered and gave themselves high-fives when he walked 

out of the room having signed that mortgage. But he also said that 

he could not otherwise get a loan. 

So even after you have now heard the example of the gentleman 

from Georgia, do you know someone who qualified for a prime loan, 

but consciously picked a subprime loan with the kind of terms that 

became prevalent in the middle of the last decade? 

Ms. WARREN. No, Congressman, I do not. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. You are one of the few witnesses I have seen in 

my many years here who begins an answer with yes or no. So I 

don’t think there is a lot of beating around the bush in listening 

to your explanations. 

One of the things that troubles me—and I don’t know how I 

wound up on everybody’s sucker list, but I get an awful lot of mail, 

a lot of it junk mail and a lot of it I don’t open and—as a lot of 

consumers do. But there is a whole group of financial institutions 

in various sectors that send you mail which is solicitations for programs and offers and they don’t identify themselves on the enveVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:10 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 065677 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\65677.TXT TERRIE
43 

lope. There is no return address; and sometimes, the return address, that is a post office box somewhere. 

What you can see through the usual window that they have in 

these types of promotions besides your name and address that it 

concerned your account at blank financial institution which you 

have an account at. And you are anxious to open it up because this 

is coming from my bank or my credit union or what have you. And 

you open it up and it talks all about selling you an insurance product or life insurance because you just refinanced your mortgage or 

opened a mortgage or an account which becomes a matter of public 

record. 

You think because of the presentation on the envelope that this 

is from your financial institution. And you can read three pages 

worth of information and sales pitch before you realize it is from 

somebody you do not know or have a relationship with. 

I don’t want to interfere with anybody’s right to free speech or 

advertiser or a promoter to inhibit their business in any way, but 

it is meant to be deliberately deceptive to the potential consumer— 

or the consumer in making them think that this is from their bank. 

Would you be amenable to exploring a method of requiring some 

form of identification? And could I have somebody on your staff 

meet with me and my staff so that at least you know on the envelope who this is from rather than being deceived into thinking it 

is from a legitimate, established institution with which you have a 

relationship? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, we would be very pleased to send 

someone over from the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to 

work with you and see how we can do this. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. But it should be somebody who has an understanding of people’s rights under our Constitution from the promoter side and the business side also to be able to do that while 

still protecting the interests of the consumer. 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, we want to be as helpful as we can. 

I only offer one small caveat—we are just getting started and we 

are still small and trying to build out. So you may have to be a 

little tolerant with us on timing, but we really want— 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am just getting started myself, so we will work 

together. 

Ms. WARREN. Alright. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Garrett, from New Jersey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARRETT. And I thank the Chair. 

I just want to start my statement or my questions—my statement first. In your statement, you constantly—and I have probably 

heard you say this before—compare the CFPB to other banking 

regulators. But, as you said today, I believe that is an inappropriate comparison. 

You stated specifically that Congress has consistently provided 

for independent funding for bank supervisors to ensure that banks 

are examined regularly and thoroughly for both safety and soundness in compliance with the law. But your agency doesn’t have a 

safety and soundness aspect or mission to it, does it? Yours is a 

consumer protection. 

44 

So the reason why other—that banking regulators have independent funding is because of the safety and soundness function. 

And that is authority. And you don’t want the Members of Congress or the political aspect to get involved affecting anything dealing with safety and soundness of financial institutions as opposed 

to what you are involved with what you just told us, which is consumer protection. 

You have a consumer protection function. Now, the other consumer protection agencies on the Federal level, what do they have? 

They have a funding mechanism that goes through the appropriation process, unlike yours. Yours is a consumer protection agency. 

Just like the other ones, you should go through the appropriations 

process. 

What also do they have? What is the other difference? If you 

were like the other banking regulators that you suggest that you 

are, then wouldn’t you have a board as a sort of check and balance 

as opposed to just one lead authority, which is where you are? All 

the other ones have boards in their framework. Yours does not. 

So I don’t think your comparison to bank regulators or—is the 

appropriate one and, therefore, the appropriation process should 

be, as we said before, that we have a check and balance on what 

comes out of the agency that you may be involved with. 

Let me go to the question. And I appreciate the fact that you are 

commended on giving yes or no answers. And so I have some easy 

questions for yes and no answers. Talking about the legal settlement and servicing issue that is out there right now in the news, 

let me ask you this: Is there a difference, do you believe first of all 

there is a fundamental issue between penalties for criminal 

wrongdoings in a wrongly foreclosed on homeowners versus your 

paperwork violations? 

Is there a difference in how those should be treated? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, there is an ongoing legal enforcement action. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. And that is why I am asking. 

Ms. WARREN. And it would not be appropriate for any member 

of the government, me or anyone else, to comment on what is involved in those negotiations. That would not be right. 

Mr. GARRETT. Let me ask you this: Have you pushed for or advocated a recommended dollar amount with regard to the other regulators involved in this situation? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I know that given the level of problems that have been uncovered with mortgage servicing that the 

acting Director of the Comptroller of the Currency has been here 

in Congress to talk about— 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. But what about— 

Ms. WARREN. —violations of State laws and local laws that as— 

Mr. GARRETT. But what about you? You are here today, so just 

tell us what you are doing. Are you making recommendations to 

the other regulators as far as the dollar amount of the penalties 

involved in this case? 

Ms. WARREN. As the government is trying to negotiate with those 

servicers that the OCC found have violated the law— 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. Okay. 

45 

Ms. WARREN. —they have asked that no one speaks about the 

content of those negotiations. 

Mr. GARRETT. So you cannot tell what your—can you tell us what 

your role is in this? 

Ms. WARREN. I can certainly tell you what our role is. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay, good. Have you made recommendations to 

them with regard to what the penalties should be? That would be 

part of your role. 

Ms. WARREN. What I can tell you about— 

Mr. GARRETT. Is part of your role to make recommendations to 

them with regard to penalties and the dollar amounts in these 

cases? 

Ms. WARREN. The Secretary of the Treasury has asked for the 

consumer agencies to give advice. The Department of Justice has 

asked us. 

Mr. GARRETT. So the answer is—the answer is yes? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, it is the case that the government 

is trying to negotiate on behalf— 

Mr. GARRETT. I understand that, but I am just trying to find out 

what you are doing. 

Ms. WARREN. —on behalf of the American people. 

Mr. GARRETT. I understand that. What are you doing? 

Ms. WARREN. And they have asked— 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARRETT. I only have 30 seconds left. 

Ms. WARREN. The Department of Justice has made it clear that 

they don’t want people who are part of the government— 

Mr. GARRETT. I understand that. Can you tell us, because they 

have asked you to be involved in this—your answer to that—what 

legal authority does a political appointee have in a situation like 

this making recommendations with regard to either civil or criminal actions? 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman, I think we need cops on the beat to 

enforce the law. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right, but we need to know what the law is. Can 

you cite— 

Ms. WARREN. We need— 

Mr. GARRETT. Can you cite what the authority is to enforce that 

law that you have? 

Ms. WARREN. We need to enforce the law. 

Mr. GARRETT. Can you tell me what that law is please? 

Ms. WARREN. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has 

been here to make it clear that the mortgage servicers— 

Mr. GARRETT. I am not talking about the OCC. I am talking 

about you, not the OCC. Can you cite what— 

Ms. WARREN. —have violated the law. 

Mr. GARRETT. Can you cite what the legal authority is for you 

to do these actions? 

Chairwoman CAPITO. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to, first of all, turn to Ranking Member Maloney for a 

short statement. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I just want to thank you for your remarkable 

public service and for serving so well in two jobs now as a Special 

Assistant to the President of the United States and as a Special 

46 

Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury. I truly do hope that he 

appoints you to be the first permanent director of this body. 

You have worked extremely hard, you are a champion really for 

consumers, and you have been balanced and fair. I compliment you 

on your work and on your testimony today and on the fine job that 

you are doing. Thank you. 

Chairwoman CAPITO. Thank you. 

And I would like to thank you also, Professor Warren. I have another—I was hoping we could get in the time allotted to another 

question. But I would say the duplication and the financial education across-the-board, the GAO study, there was a great concern 

over the gap that is going to occur if this agency doesn’t have a 

leader in July and regulations that are moving forward and what 

is going to happen there. And there are a lot of players at the table 

that are very concerned about that. So I appreciate your coming in 

and testifying. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this witness which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to this witness and to 

place her responses in the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

March 16, 2011 

48 


65677.001
49 


65677.002
50 


65677.003
51 


65677.004
52 


65677.005
53 


65677.006
54 


65677.007
55 


65677.008
56 


65677.009
57 


65677.010
58 


65677.011
59 


65677.012
60 


65677.013
61 


65677.014
62 


65677.015
63 


65677.016
64 


65677.017
65 


65677.018
66 


65677.019
67 


65677.020
68 


65677.021
69 


65677.022
70 


65677.023
71 


65677.024
72 


65677.025
73 


65677.026
74 


65677.027
75 


65677.028
76 


65677.029
77 


65677.030
78 


65677.031
79 


65677.032
80 


65677.033
81 


65677.034
82 


65677.035
83 


65677.036
84 


65677.037
85 


65677.038
86 


65677.039
87 


65677.040
88 


65677.041
89 


65677.042
90 


65677.043
91 


65677.044
92 


65677.045
93 


65677.046
94 


65677.047
95 


65677.048
96 


65677.049
97 


65677.050
98 


65677.051
99 


65677.052
100 


65677.053