U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–417 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

HEARING ON THE 2018 SEMI-ANNUAL 

REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER 

FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 11, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 115–83 

( 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee 

CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York 

TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

April 11, 2018 ................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

April 11, 2018 ................................................................................................... 79 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 

Mulvaney, Hon. Mick, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ........................................................................................................................ 5 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Mulvaney, Hon. Mick ....................................................................................... 80 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Article entitled, ‘‘Consumers Union calls for nomination of permanent 

CFPB director dedicated to protecting consumers from financial 

abuses’’ ........................................................................................................... 144 

Written statement for the record from U.S. PIRG ........................................ 146 

Wagner, Hon. Ann: 

Supplemental production of documents and briefing book from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) ......................................... 153 

Mulvaney, Hon. Mick: 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representatives Waters, Budd, Huizenga, Hultgren, Pittenger, and Sinema ............ 253 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(1) 

HEARING ON THE 2018 SEMI-ANNUAL 

REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

Wednesday, April 11, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

2128 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeb Hensarling [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hensarling, Royce, Pearce, Posey, 

Luetkemeyer, Huizenga, Duffy, Stivers, Hultgren, Pittenger, Wagner, Barr, Rothfus, Tipton, Williams, Poliquin, Love, Hill, Emmer, 

Zeldin, Trott, Loudermilk, Mooney, MacArthur, Davidson, Budd, 

Kustoff, Tenney, Waters, Maloney, Velazquez, Sherman, Meeks, 

Capuano, Clay, Lynch, Scott, Green, Cleaver, Ellison, Foster, Kildee, Delaney, Sinema, Beatty, Heck, Vargas, Gottheimer, Gonzalez, 

Crist, and Kihuen. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 

committee at any time. 

And all Members will have 5 legislation days within which to 

submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the 

record. 

This hearing is for the purpose of receiving the semi-annual report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

Walking in through the hallway I have never seen such a crowded hallway. Rarely have I seen so much excitement. So just in case 

you thought Mr. Zuckerberg was appearing in this hearing room, 

he will be across the hallway. 

Having said that, I now recognize myself for 3 minutes to give 

an opening statement. 

This morning we welcome home Mick Mulvaney, a highly respected former Member of this very committee, the director of the 

OMB, and the acting director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. He is here to deliver the Bureau’s latest semi-annual 

report to Congress. 

When Richard Cordray was director of CFPB I maintained it was 

perhaps the single most powerful and unaccountable agency in the 

history of the republic. Now that Mick Mulvaney is acting director, 

I still maintain that the CFPB is the most powerful and unaccountable agency in the history of the republic. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

2 

Democrats chose to insulate it from Congress, the President, 

courts, voters, and the democratic process. The CFPB is unaccountable to the President, because the director can only be removed for 

cause. The CFPB is unaccountable to Congress because it determines its own funding stream. The CFPB is unaccountable to the 

courts because it benefits from the Chevron doctrine. The CFPB is 

unaccountable to, well, the CFPB, because there is really not even 

a ‘‘them.’’ In this case, there just happens to be a ‘‘him.’’ No commission, no board, no effective oversight. 

So powerful is the CFPB director that he alone has been granted 

the unprecedented power to declare any mortgage, credit card, or 

bank account unfair or abusive, at which point Americans can’t 

have them if they need them, want them, and can afford them. The 

fact that the CFPB director has such power is itself unfair and 

abusive, and is an affront to the personal freedom of every American citizen. 

While the Bureau retains all of these unbridled powers and remains unaccountable under Acting Director Mulvaney, there is one 

distinction: Director Cordray often acted unlawfully; Acting Director Mulvaney acts lawfully. What a welcome change. 

For example, in the PHH case, the facts show that Mr. Cordray 

unilaterally reversed decades of accepted law with regards to 

RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act), and did so without formal rulemaking. No comment, no due process, no notice. 

Then, to make matters worse, Mr. Cordray attempted to apply 

these new—this new rogue standard retroactively. Fortunately, 

these actions were held unlawful by the D.C. Court of Appeals. And 

that is just one example. 

We also know that, in many respects, consumers have been 

harmed by the CFPB. One example, according to researchers at the 

University of Maryland, the CFPB’s Qualified Mortgage (QM) rule 

harmed middle-income borrowers who not only—quote—didn’t obtain cheaper mortgages, but were cut out of the mortgage market 

altogether. 

But I must admit it is sheer irony and great comic relief to see 

the wailing and gnashing of teeth of many of my Democratic colleagues who now denounce the unaccountable nature of the CFPB, 

but only because now a Republican is in control. I ask: Where have 

you been? 

The good news is we have an acting director before us today who 

is actually asking our assistance in reforming the CFPB. And if our 

Democrat colleagues wish for the Bureau to be accountable and responsive, please work with us to ensure we do just that. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I now yield to the Ranking Member for 

her opening statement. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I 

would like to say at the outset that Mr. Mulvaney is not the acting 

director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He was illegally appointed by President Trump in a move that blatantly contradicts the Dodd-Frank statute, which is very clear that the deputy director of the agency shall serve as acting director in the case 

of absence or unavailability of the director. 

So I want to be very clear that Democrats’ participation in this 

hearing is not in any way an acknowledgment of Mr. Mulvaney’s 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

3 

legitimacy at the Consumer Bureau. Nevertheless, given the many 

impactful and, indeed, harmful decisions Mr. Mulvaney is making 

with regard to the Consumer Bureau, it is necessary for us to engage with him in an oversight capacity here today, while the courts 

decide who should actually be in charge. I am very concerned about 

Mr. Mulvaney’s actions, and have serious questions that he must 

address in his testimony. 

Mr. Mulvaney’s very presence at the Consumer Bureau compromises the critical independence of the agency, which was specifically designed by Congress to be an independent watchdog for 

America’s consumers. As director of the White House Office of 

Management and Budget, Mr. Mulvaney serves at the pleasure of 

and reports to the President, which means that this President 

holds an inappropriate level of influence over the operations and 

activities of the Consumer Bureau and our system of banking regulations. 

It is very clear that Mr. Mulvaney is indeed carrying out this 

President’s agenda at the Consumer Bureau. He has taken a series 

of actions that weaken the agency’s ability to carry out its important mission and benefit the predatory actors that the agency is designed to police. 

For example, he has stripped the Consumer Bureau’s Office of 

Fair Lending of its enforcement and supervisory powers, which has 

the effect of undermining the Consumer Bureau’s ability to enforce 

fair lending laws. 

Mr. Mulvaney has also demonstrated a pattern of working to 

help out payday lenders. He has stopped the implementation of the 

Consumer Bureau’s Sensible Payday Rule. He withdrew a lawsuit 

that the Consumer Bureau had initiated against a group of payday 

lenders who had allegedly deceived consumers about the cost of 

loans which had interest rates as high as 950 percent a year. And 

he has also ceased an investigation into a high-cost installment 

lender called World Acceptance Corporation, which reportedly 

has—was engaging in abusive practices. 

His actions have signaled that the Consumer Bureau is a safe 

haven for payday lenders, so much so that the former CEO of 

World Acceptance Corporation actually sent him her resume, asking if she could be the next director of the Consumer Bureau. 

Enforcement actions have also ground to a halt, with zero actions 

between the time when Mulvaney first walked through the doors 

of the Consumer Bureau and today. 

Mr. Chairman, Democrats will not allow the Consumer Bureau’s 

statutorily mandated mission to be undermined. It is a critically 

important agency that must be allowed to continue its work protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive 

practices. 

Ms. WATERS. I thank you and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer, the Chairman of the Financial 

Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee for 2 minutes. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mulvaney, 

welcome back to the committee. We appreciate your willingness to 

be with us this morning. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

4 

While the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has a wellintended mission, in practice it has been an unaccountable, unconstitutional, politically driven agency. For many years you have 

heard our concerns surrounding the Bureau. Now that you have 

had the opportunity to observe this agency from multiple vantage 

points, I have no doubt that the insights you will offer today will 

be both valuable and compelling. 

The mountain of rules coming out of the Bureau under your 

predecessor crippled financial institutions seeking to serve their 

communities. The uncertainty surrounding these—those rules, 

paired with the apparent desire to regulate through enforcement, 

has had a chilling effect on financial services companies across the 

Nation. 

As you know, Mr. Mulvaney, the chilling effects don’t stop at 

banks and credit unions, because ultimately they punish the consumers who are charged—who you are charged with protecting. 

Under your leadership the BCF has taken steps to not just talk 

the talk, but to walk the walk, and to ensure consumer protection 

without assaulting financial independence. In your brief tenure you 

have underscored the need for increased transparency and oversight of the Bureau. You have called for an end to the absolute 

power you possess as acting BCF Director, which, in your words, 

would frighten most of us. You have allowed for greater public 

input into rules, and you called for an end to what I believe is essentially unlawful legislating by Bureau staff. 

Mr. Mulvaney, you are, thankfully, both a terrible bureaucrat, 

but a great leader: A most welcome change. 

American consumers deserve strong protections, while also being 

afforded the opportunity to control their own financial decisions 

and futures. Under your leadership, I believe the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is well on its way to finally living up 

to its name. 

We all thank you for your steps that the—all the steps that you 

have taken thus far, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, the Vice 

Ranking Member, for 1 minute. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 

Ranking Member. And Mr. Mulvaney, welcome back. I am sure you 

have missed the committee desperately. 

You and I had differences when we were here. We maintained a 

good relationship. We still have differences, and that is part of 

what we will explore at this committee. 

A concern that I have is that the Bureau’s original mission was 

to protect the American consumer. Previously, under Director 

Cordray, $12 billion was returned to consumers; 30 million Americans recovered damages for deceptive, predatory, or abusive practices by banks, student loan providers, payday lenders. But, as was 

pointed out, since the director, Director Cordray, left, the Bureau 

has not taken any significant enforcement actions. 

The Bureau has instead delayed implementation of important 

protections like the payday rule and, even more concerning, has 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

5 

taken steps to remove the independence of the Bureau. And that 

is the point that I think is most important. 

The Bureau’s independence makes it an important entity. That 

independence actually means that it stands up for the American 

consumer. An administration that believes that a person who is— 

already has a full-time job—and I imagine the director of OMB is 

one that takes a lot of your time—can also be the principal defender of American consumers does not take that job or that role 

seriously enough. 

With that, I echo Member Waters’ concern about whether or not 

you actually hold this position. And while the— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair has been very generous on your— 

Mr. KILDEE. You have been. 

Chairman HENSARLING. —60-second opening statement. 

Mr. KILDEE. All right. I think you get my point. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Today we welcome the testimony of the 

Honorable Mick Mulvaney to present the semi-annual report of the 

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, as required by Title X 

of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Director Mulvaney is, obviously, no stranger to us, as he was our 

colleague before President Trump nominated him to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget. He is also the current 

acting director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a 

post he was appointed to on November 24th of 2017. Prior to his 

time in the Administration, he served the people of the 5th District 

of South Carolina as their Member of Congress from 2010, and was 

the first Republican Member to hold that seat in 128 years. 

A lifelong Carolinas resident, he received his bachelor’s degree 

from Georgetown University and his juris doctor from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Without objection, the witness’s written statement will be made 

part of the record. 

Director Mulvaney, welcome home. You are now recognized to 

give an oral presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICK MULVANEY 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

me. Ranking Member Waters, it is good to see everybody. For the 

new faces, it is a pleasure to be here before you to talk about our 

semi-annual report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. I hope y’all have it. You should have access to that. 

I also have a written statement. My experience being on the committee, though, that having people sit here and read their written 

statements is a complete waste of time, so I am not going to do it. 

I will talk a little bit about why I am here today. I want to be 

here today to answer questions. I am excited to be here today to 

answer questions. I think it is important that we bring some transparency and accountability to this Bureau, to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

The Bureau is not designed structurally to be accountable. By its 

very DNA, by its very nature, it is not accountable to you, it is not 

accountable to the public, it is not accountable to anybody, other 

than itself. And I hope today we get a chance to explore how to fix 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

6 

those things, and why those things are not beneficial, that independence—to Mr. Kildee’s point—does not necessarily or not have 

to, mean unaccountable to everyone. 

I will give you just one example, and I hope we get a chance to 

talk about more during the course of the day. I have to be here. 

The statute requires me to be here, and I am happy to be here. I 

do not have to answer a single one of your questions. I will, and 

I look forward to doing that. But I don’t have to. 

The statute says that I shall appear before Congress, and I am 

doing that today and doing it tomorrow in the Senate. Again, 

happy to do it. Doesn’t say a word about answering your questions, 

doesn’t say a word about testifying, which is interesting, because 

elsewhere in Dodd-Frank other people do have to appear and testify, or appear and answer questions. For some reason, the director 

of the Bureau does not. The director of the Bureau only has to appear. 

So I believe it would be my statutory right to simply sit here and 

twiddle my thumbs for the next 4 hours, while y’all ask questions. 

I think that is wrong. And again, I am not going to do it. But I 

use that as just one of many examples of what is broken in the way 

this statute is written. 

And I hope that, as a result of the opportunity we have here 

today to answer questions—and I want to answer as many as I possibly can, recognizing that some of them maybe I don’t know, and 

I will have to get back to you—and that goes to folks on both sides 

of the aisle—but I want to answer as many as I can. But I hope 

that it is all aimed toward one end goal of trying to figure out a 

way to work together to make this more accountable. 

I got a letter from Elizabeth Warren. She was not really happy. 

Senator Warren was not happy with some of the answers she got 

back from me and some inquiries she made to the Bureau. I reminded her that sounded a lot like some of the frustrations that 

this side of the aisle had when Mr. Cordray sat here for the last 

4 or 5 years. 

And I suggested to her that maybe it wasn’t the nature of the 

person sitting in the chair that was causing that frustration, it was 

the nature of the underlying statute that was causing that frustration, and that both sides might be well served by fixing the statute 

and bringing some transparency in here so that we do have to answer your questions, and that while you may disagree with a policy, as Mr. Kildee and I have done in the past, and will continue 

to do, we won’t disagree about the fact that if I am going to sit here 

and spend $700 million of y’all’s money and the taxpayers’ money 

every single year, at least maybe I should have to answer some 

questions about how and why I am doing that. 

So I hope that is—that is the reason I am here, I hope it is the 

reason that y’all are here, and I look forward to answering as many 

questions as I can. I am here until y’all get tired of asking me 

questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

80 of the Appendix.] 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chair now yields himself 5 minutes 

for questions. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

7 

Before I get to the questions, Mr. Mulvaney, I do wish to compliment you because, contrary to your predecessor, you turned in 

your testimony oon time. So you are the first CFPB director— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I hired some really good staffers. 

Chairman HENSARLING. —to do that. 

Mr. MULVANEY. They have a good background in this. But anyway, that is— 

Chairman HENSARLING. I want to explore a little bit more—as 

you know, since we have worked together for many years, I have 

a number of concerns about CFPB. I am concerned about to what 

extent they do indeed protect consumers, because part of consumer 

protections is to protect their rights to a competitive, transparent 

market. 

But I am also concerned about, have we simply eviscerated traditional foundational principles of checks and balances and due process. 

So you just told us that, under the Dodd-Frank Act, if you so 

chose, you could sit here, put your feet up on the desk, and, I suppose, take out your iPhone and play Candy Crush for the next 4 

hours, and there would be nothing we could do about it. 

I also understand, I believe—and I mentioned it in my opening 

statement—that depending upon what side of the bed you wake up 

on, you could determine—you alone, in your solitary capacity, could 

declare any credit card in the Nation abusive and functionally outlaw it. Is that correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I believe that to be the case. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. OK. I believe also, particularly—let me 

see if I can get the citation in front of me—under section 1022(b)(3) 

of Dodd-Frank, you have the power to—quote—unconditionally exempt any class of covered persons from any provision of this title, 

or from any rule issued under this title, as the Bureau deems necessary or appropriate. 

My reading of this part of Dodd-Frank, then, tells me, if you so 

chose, could you exempt all community banks—scratch that. Could 

you exempt all banks located in, say, Dallas, Texas from the jurisdiction of CFPB enforcement? 

Mr. MULVANEY. If we wrote the rules such that that was a class, 

a properly identified class, absolutely. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Well, what is a class? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is a great question. 

Chairman HENSARLING. So you, on your own recognizance, could 

essentially—you could, I suppose, exempt all banks that started 

with a C? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. This doesn’t seem to be wise. Again, it 

seems to be totally devoid of checks and balances. 

Let’s talk a little bit about the budget. So there is a ceiling, I 

suppose, on how much you can ask for. But you—who determines 

the budget of the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do. 

Chairman HENSARLING. You do? So how do you get your money, 

Mr. Mulvaney? How do you get your appropriation? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I send a letter to the Federal Reserve Board and 

they send me a check. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

8 

Chairman HENSARLING. Do they review your request? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, I have—I don’t think so. They have never 

asked the CFPB to justify any spending. We send over a letter that 

says, ‘‘Please send us’’—I think the letter I just sent last week was 

$98.5 million— 

Chairman HENSARLING. So the Fed is your personal ATM. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Up to the limits prescribed by the statute, which 

is about $700 million. 

Chairman HENSARLING. So I assume that you have to pay payroll. But after—and payroll is roughly half of your current budget? 

Mr. MULVANEY. About 60 percent. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Sixty percent. So the other 40 percent, 

which is still—what is that, a few hundred million dollars? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Oh, about $280 million-ish. 

Chairman HENSARLING. OK, so there is $280 million that you 

alone get to decide how it is spent. Is that correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The naming rights at Texas Stadium for 

the Dallas Cowboys, AT&T pays roughly—I think it was close to 

$20 million a year for those naming rights. If you wished to advertise the Bureau, could you take this money and outbid AT&T and 

have the naming rights at Texas Stadium? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Oh, absolutely. In fact, I think we spent at least 

$40 million on advertising up to this point, anyway. So sure, we 

could do that. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Could you take that $250 million and 

ensure that every man, woman, and child in America has a CFPB 

tee shirt, ball cap, and koozie? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. In fact, I think, under previous leadership, 

we paid to put advertising in every single tax return. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Well, this is borderline insane is what it 

is, Mr. Mulvaney, borderline insane. 

Let me ask you this. So you once in one quarter asked for zero 

dollars of funding, correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I did. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. And that was in the second quarter of 

2018. You have now since asked for $98.5 million in the third quarter of 2018, is that correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. If you chose—if you chose, going forward, to ask for zero dollars, isn’t it true that the other prudential 

regulators—say the Fed, the OCC (Office of Comptroller of the Currency), the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)—do have 

secondary concurrent jurisdiction to enforce all Federal consumer 

protection laws? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In most places, I think there is one exception on 

abusive, and there are some exceptions, I think— 

Chairman HENSARLING. So with the exception of the extra A in 

UDAP, is the answer yes to the question? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think there is one other place, Mr. Chairman, 

when it comes to rulemaking under fair debt collection— 

Chairman HENSARLING. So if the CFPB had zero funding, consumers are still protected also by State attorneys general, is that 

correct? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

9 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. OK. Well, I have exceeded my own time. 

I will attempt to set a good example. I yield back. The Chair now 

recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to 

repeat for Mr. Mulvaney that you are not and, in my words, should 

not be construed to suggest the legitimate, lawful acting director of 

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So I look forward to 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s swift ruling in the matter. But I will not 

stand idly by while President Trump’s OMB director destroys the 

Consumer Bureau when harmed consumers need help. 

Before I raise some particular questions with you, you have made 

quite—made it quite known this morning that you don’t have to be 

here and that you don’t have to answer questions. I don’t know 

why you think that is so extraordinary. The previous director came 

here 63 times and not only answered all of our questions, but was 

badgered by our Chairman. So we certainly expect you to be here, 

and we certainly expect you to answer our questions. 

Mr. Mulvaney, given that the President has wanted to do a big 

number on Dodd-Frank for his friends on Wall Street, it seems 

clear that his goals are about trying to install you at the Consumer—what his goals are about trying to install you at the Consumer Bureau. 

Now, do you support the mission of the Consumer Bureau? Let’s 

review the record. And maybe you could just answer by yes or no. 

And I am remembering when you served on this committee and 

some of the things that you said. 

Did—do you remember having said, ‘‘I don’t like the fact that the 

CFPB exists. I will be perfectly honest with you.’’ Have you 

changed your mind? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I don’t remember saying that, Representative 

Waters, but that certainly does sound like something I would have 

said. 

Ms. WATERS. You also said, ‘‘It turns out being a joke, and that 

is what the CFPB really has been, in a sick and sad kind of way. 

Some of us would like to get rid of it.’’ Do you remember saying 

that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, I don’t have a specific recollection, but I 

have been informed that, yes, I have said that. And I believe that 

I did say that. 

Ms. WATERS. All right. Yes or no, were you an original cosponsor 

of H.R. 3118, a bill introduced in the last Congress by Representative Ratcliffe to fully and completely repeal the Consumer Bureau? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It wouldn’t surprise me if I was, but I don’t remember the bill by that number. 

Ms. WATERS. So what do you think those of us who have the responsibility for implementing Dodd-Frank and being public policymakers that we are supposed to be about someone who now is sitting in a position that they really—happens to be sitting in illegally, to begin with—why should we think that you are not there 

to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Actually, with respect, Congresswoman, I would 

suggest that I am the one responsible for implementing Doddnshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

10 

Frank, not you. You are responsible for passing the legislation and, 

and then the Executive branch implements it. 

I have not burned the place down, despite what you may have 

heard about what I was going to do when I got there. I think that 

we have 10 fewer people working there now than the day I took 

over. That is out of 1,627 people. We continue— 

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time— 

Mr. MULVANEY. —to enforce the law. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me just say to you that you couldn’t implement 

a thing unless, first of all, there was legislation that was passed 

to deal with what you are doing; and, second, that we have the responsibility for oversight for your implementation. So I want you 

to understand the relationship. 

Furthermore, let me just say that the Office of Fair Lending and 

Equal Opportunity is something that I am very concerned about. 

Mr. Mulvaney, the Consumer Bureau’s Office of Fair Lending and 

Equal Opportunity has had many successes, including record court 

settlements for consumers who were illegally discriminated against 

in credit court mortgage and indirect lending. 

You recently made changes to gut the powers and undermine the 

role of this critical office. Why have you stopped experts in supervision and enforcement of our lending discrimination laws from 

doing their jobs? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We haven’t. The Fair Lending Office has a supervision and enforcement function and an education function. 

And, prior to the changes that I made, all of it sat within our own 

Supervision and Enforcement. And all we did is split it into two 

pieces, so that supervision and enforcement was under Supervision 

and Enforcement, and education was actually elevated, Congresswoman, to the director’s office. So we actually put them in more of 

a prestigious position in the office than existed beforehand. 

Ms. WATERS. A recent investigative news report revealed—suggested there is pervasive modern-day redlining going on throughout 

the country. Is it your view that fair lending and equal opportunity 

laws simply aren’t a priority or aren’t even important? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, I absolutely think that discrimination is abhorrent, and we should fight against it. And we do intend to enforce the laws against discrimination at the Bureau. 

Ms. WATERS. How will you ensure that lending discrimination is 

not a prevalent practice among lenders? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The same way it has been done since the Bureau 

was created. We do supervision, we do oversight, we do enforcement, we have folks on the ground. We have, I think, 600 people 

today doing supervision. 

Ms. WATERS. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Luetkemeyer, Chairman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mulvaney, thank you again for being here. Director 

Cordray seemed to adopt a policy of regulation by enforcement. The 

director denied that when I asked him about it during one appearance before this committee, but the simple truth of the matter is 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

11 

that taking enforcement actions against a firm when no rule or 

guidance has been issued is, in actuality, regulation by enforcement. In fact, I could give you an example of the BCF fining an 

entity based on they were thinking about proposing a rule. 

In your January memo to the staff, you suggest that the days of 

regulation by enforcement were coming to an end. You wrote, 

‘‘When it comes to enforcement, we will focus on quantifiable and 

unavoidable harm to the consumer.’’ Can you tell us about your 

goals for enforcement, and how you—and what do you believe the 

Bureau’s enforcement authorities—how they should be used? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. Regulation by enforcement is done. We 

are not doing it any more. I believe very firmly that financial service providers should be allowed to know what the law is before they 

are accused of breaking it. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Very succinct. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I could talk more, if you wanted me to, but— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. How do you—you outlined in the—in your 

strategic plan, the goal of ensuring that all consumers have access 

to markets for consumer financial products and services. How do 

you plan to accomplish this goal? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are going to do, I think—and again, when I 

say a better job, I want to make it very clear that I was not there 

beforehand. So when you hear me say that we are going to do 

things differently, I don’t want to automatically imply that the staff 

was not doing a good job before I got there. In fact, my experience 

has been that nothing could be further from the truth. I have been 

very impressed with the quality of the work that the staff has been 

asked to do. 

The question is what have they been asked to do by their leadership. And one of the things I have asked the staff to pay closer attention to, moving forward, is the cost benefit analysis. I was, quite 

frankly, surprised, Mr. Luetkemeyer, by the amount of qualitative 

cost benefit analysis that was done. In fact, my background is in 

numbers, economics, commerce, finance. I didn’t realize you could 

do qualitative cost benefit analysis. I thought cost benefit analysis 

was supposed to be quantitative. 

I have come to accept, I think, that a certain amount of qualitative analysis is part—can be a valuable part of any analysis. But 

we are going to do a better job on quantitative analysis. 

So, to your point, we are going to take a close look at how consumers would be affected, in terms of services that would not be 

available to them, the impact on the markets, the impacts on availability of credit, the impacts of availability of capital, and the flow 

of capital to small businesses and to individuals. We are going to 

do more quantitative analysis in those areas. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Along that same line, right now there is discussion with regards to the small-dollar lending rule. And you have 

stopped the implementation of it, and I assume that we are in the 

process of trying to go back and have some—to re-comment this 

and, again, look at the cost benefit of the rule that was proposed. 

My understanding is that when proposed there were significantly 

more folks who were supportive of allowing the small-dollar lending to continue, versus those who wanted to be very prescriptive 

and restricted even further. Would you like to comment on that? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

12 

Mr. MULVANEY. And just to clarify, we have not stopped that 

rule. That is not the appropriate way you deal with things. What 

we have done is, by following the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA), simply given notice of our intent to revisit the rule, which 

is exactly what the APA requires. 

We have not done any pre-judgment, we have not come to any 

pre-determined conclusions. We have simply given notice of our intention to do so, which is exactly what the APA implies. And we 

will go through all of the statutory requirements to do so—notice 

and comment, so forth, analysis of all the data. 

Is it possible that I may come to different conclusions than my 

predecessor did, looking at the same sets of data? Absolutely. That 

is the nature of the discretion of the office. But we have not 

stopped the rule, we have simply given proper notice and comment 

under the APA that we intend to revisit it. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. When you are looking at that rule, are you 

going to be looking at the access to credit for small-dollar needs of 

consumers as something that would be a priority to see how you 

can continue to allow the markets to provide that opportunity for 

people who want to take advantage of it? 

And then also, the cost benefit of allowing that to happen in a 

certain way, or whatever the rules—however they are, is this— 

these are two important points, I think. 

Mr. MULVANEY. We would be looking at anything that is relevant 

to an ordinary rulemaking, and those things are absolutely part of 

those—part of that data. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I know that you made—I was talking with 

some folks and there was a situation. I know that the Chairman 

talked a minute ago about some of the dollars that you were using. 

And you have some economic researchers here that—something 

like 40 of them—and they are able to do some self-directed research for you. And is that very productive? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I haven’t found the productivity in it yet, Congressman. We could talk about that maybe a little bit further in 

another question. But yes, the self-directed research that is not 

aimed toward the mission of the Bureau is something that has 

caught my eye. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I will yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Maloney, 

Ranking Member of our Capital Markets Subcommittee. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Mulvaney, welcome. Thank you for being 

here. First I want to be clear that, just because I am engaging with 

you at this hearing, that it is not an acknowledgment that you are 

legally entitled to be the acting director of the Bureau. I believe 

Dodd-Frank was clear in this matter, and that Leandra English is 

the lawful acting director of the Bureau. 

That being said, I have some questions. First of all, how long 

have you been at the Bureau? 

Mr. MULVANEY. November 24th. So what is that? Five months, 

maybe. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes. And under your predecessor, the Bureau 

was bringing about four enforcement actions per month to protect 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

13 

consumers. So let me ask you: How many enforcement actions has 

the Bureau initiated since you took over? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We have initiated none since I have been there. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And so it is zero. The Bureau has brought absolutely zero enforcement actions in nearly 5 months since you have 

been there. And in your testimony you said, ‘‘Our job is to enforce 

Federal consumer laws.’’ But so far there is no evidence that you 

are enforcing any of the laws. 

You have also said that you are taking a ‘‘new approach’’ at the 

Bureau. Does your new approach involve bringing any actual enforcement actions, or are you telling me that every single financial 

institution in America has suddenly snapped into full compliance 

with every single consumer financial law since you took over last 

November? Because that would be the first time in history that 

that has happened. 

So what is your explanation? There has been no enforcement 

law, no law that has been violated, no abuse of consumers in the 

last 5 months? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Actually, nothing could be further from the 

truth, Congresswoman. We have—actively litigating 25 cases, 

which includes continuing to litigate things that were filed before 

I was there. We have only made one dismissal of lawsuits since I 

have been there, and that was without prejudice. We could talk 

about that more, if you want to, in another question. 

Mrs. MALONEY. OK, that is good. May I ask that you submit the 

documents to the committee? Because I would like to read them. 

Mr. MULVANEY. What documents would that be? 

Mrs. MALONEY. About the actions that you are continuing. If you 

are just continuing what was done before you, or have you initiated 

any actions under your leadership? 

Mr. MULVANEY. A couple different things. Keep in mind we really 

put them in three buckets at the Bureau, and I will handle this 

very quickly. 

There are investigations that are ongoing. There are about 100 

of those. 

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And those could start and stop at any particular 

time, the senior staff— 

Mrs. MALONEY. My question was what have you initiated, not 

what is ongoing. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And again— 

Mrs. MALONEY. What have you initiated under your leadership? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In the ordinary course of business we could start 

new investigations every single day there, and I wouldn’t be 

aware— 

Mrs. MALONEY. But have you started any? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I wouldn’t be aware of it, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Oh, you— 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is done in the field, and it is not checked on 

by me— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Can you look into it and get back to us— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure. 

Mrs. MALONEY. —if you have initiated anything— 

Mr. MULVANEY. And then there is— 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

14 

Mrs. MALONEY. under your leadership to help consumers. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And there is the roughly— 

Mrs. MALONEY. But under your predecessor I would like to make 

clear that the Bureau returned over $12 billion to American consumers who have been ripped off. And how much money has the 

Bureau returned to American consumers who have been ripped off 

by any financial institution in America since you took office? 

Mr. MULVANEY. $93 million. 

Mrs. MALONEY. $93 million? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. That you have returned to consumers? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Please— 

Mr. MULVANEY. 92.6 

Mrs. MALONEY. 92.6. Could you get that paperwork to the Chairman, so that all of us can see it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure, and that is a public record. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Was that of any initiation that you did, or was 

that again done by your predecessor? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It was a distribution that was approved while I 

was on the job. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But was the project initiated by you to return 

this money? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The flow of money out of the— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Let me make clear, and I can make this question 

in writing. I want to know how much you returned under your 

leadership that you initiated, not the prior one. And we can get 

that answer in writing, because I do feel that basically we have a 

Bureau that refuses to take any new actions, refuses to punish 

anyone for violating any existing rules, and refuses to provide tangible help to American consumers, the very people that the Bureau 

was created to help. 

This is not what Congress intended when we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and I am deeply disappointed, 

deeply disappointed that we have essentially taken the cop off the 

beat in terms of initiating new actions to help consumers, not just 

following up on your predecessor. 

Now, I read in the paper on Monday that Reuters reported that 

the Bureau—is my time up—is going after Wells Fargo. And do I 

have time to ask the question? 

Chairman HENSARLING. I am afraid we are already 20 seconds 

over, so— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, my apologies. 

Chairman HENSARLING. —the time of the gentlelady— 

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back. I was just warming up and I ran 

out of time. All right. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga, Chairman of our Capital Markets 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I have to tell you, Director Mulvaney, it is good 

to have you here. The last director that was here pretty much 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

15 

stalled, obfuscated, ran out the clock, and filibustered his entire 

time. We are actually getting answers, which is refreshing. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Apparently I didn’t say enough in response to 

Mr. Luetkemeyer; I think I caught him off guard. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So yes, you—exactly right. We weren’t actually— 

we were expecting you to try to run out the clock like the last guy. 

But the—I want—I do want to congratulate you on your staff reduction of 0.0614 percent of your staff. So yes, that would be a sarcastic note to those that believe that you are gutting it all. 

I do want to give you an opportunity, though, to address a couple 

of things that were brought up. How many enforcement actions 

were taken under the former Bureau chief, Director Cordray in his 

first 6 months? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In his first 6 months, zero. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Zero. OK. And your sense was you came in—I 

know, from a Michigan company that I have been in communication with, that was an ongoing action that has still continued to be 

dealt with. You are moving through with what had been in the 

pipeline. Is that right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me make one thing very clear to everybody. 

We are still going after bad actors. In fact, I have actually taken 

the extraordinary step of ratifying action in order to clarify whether or not the constitutional issue has been handled. I have ratified 

actions in other litigation that is ongoing. We are still going after 

bad actors. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. And I think, as you had indicated, though, what 

practice that you are hoping to curb and eliminate is enforcement, 

or regulation by enforcement. And I think that is something we can 

talk about. 

One of my colleagues just said, has everybody snapped into compliance. There is always—benefit of being a realist here, I guess, 

we always know that there are going to be bad actors out there. 

What a lot of us had a concern about was that the last director of 

the Bureau, frankly, just made up violations. And these CIDs (Civil 

Investigative Demands) that would go out requesting information 

on activities that were perfectly legal, but they just didn’t like, then 

they would fine people and try to curb everyone else’s actions 

through those fines and those threats. And I would like you to address that. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure. We will take a specific example of an action that was brought. There was a financial service provider doing 

something that they had believed to be legal because it had been 

legal for a long time under guidance that had been issued by HUD. 

And, without notice, the CFPB popped them for what they considered to be violations. I just happen to think that that is wrong. 

That is that enforcement by—or regulation by enforcement that I 

talk about. 

I think you should be allowed to know what the law is before you 

are accused of breaking it. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. And then I think there was probably a few dozen 

press releases on that afterwards. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, I don’t—I didn’t follow a lot of the press 

releases under the previous leadership. I wouldn’t be surprised— 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

16 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I know that a number—I know that they certainly were very eager after they would get these consent decrees 

to go out and tout those and use those to bludgeon things, to bludgeon other companies. 

I do want to also take a minute here and allow you to talk about 

these self-directed researchers in the economics departments of 

what you have been dealing with over at the Bureau. 

Mr. MULVANEY. There was a practice there that I was just made 

aware of in the last couple of weeks where our economists are allowed to take up to 50 percent of their time, paid— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I am sorry, did you just say half of their time? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Up to half of their— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Half of their taxpayer-sponsored time? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes sir, to do research, which on its face probably isn’t that objectionable, I guess, until you realize that there is 

no requirement that the research be connected to the actual job 

that the Bureau does. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So they could be researching— 

Mr. MULVANEY. The last time I saw— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. —climate change? 

Mr. MULVANEY. —was a research project on the impact of hub 

airports and urban growth that we paid for at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. And that has what, exactly, to do with the Bureau of Consumer Financial— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am still struggling with that one, myself. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. As would I. So how—are you—do you have the 

ability to go in and change that requirement? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I—yes and no. We are going to follow the rules. 

I operate under a collective bargaining agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union, so we have rules on how we 

would go about changing job descriptions, and so forth, and we are 

going to go through the proper processes. But we are going to look 

very closely at that practice. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So logic dictates we could have half the number 

of economists, and do the exact same amount of work on consumer 

protection. So we might be able to grow that 0.00614 percent up 

a little bit. If we are going to get the same amount of research out 

of half the number of economists, that might be a step that we 

might want to take. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is not very efficient. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. No, it is not. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mulvaney, I am very concerned about your dual roles at 

OMB and now at the CFPB. I do not understand how you are able 

to work and report directly to President Trump part of the time 

and then act as an independent director of the Consumer Bureau 

charged with protecting working Americans from the deceptive and 

predatory business practices. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

17 

Mr. Mulvaney, I have a series of questions that I would like to 

get a yes-or-no answer. And if you feel you need to expand on 

them, will you please submit them in writing? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I will do my best. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Mulvaney, do you maintain offices at both 

the CFPB and OMB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever conducted work for the CFPB 

while at the offices of OMB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. On the weekends I like to sit at my OMB office 

and do my reading— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes or no? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The answer is yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever conducted work for CFPB while 

in the Oval Office? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever conducted work for the CFPB 

while in the Oval Office with President Trump? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. Since I—I don’t get to go in the Oval 

Office when the President is not there. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. OK. So he is never there? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. You asked me the first question, have I ever 

done it in the Oval Office, and the answer is no. So, by definition, 

I couldn’t do it in the Oval Office with President Trump. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, you could be with the President discussing 

some issues. Maybe you are asked a question about CFPB and you 

conduct the business right there. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Right, but I am saying no to both your questions. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. OK. Have you ever—thank you. Have you ever 

conducted work as director of OMB while at the offices of the 

CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I may have taken a phone call occasionally, but 

most of my OMB work is done at OMB. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So you do. Do you receive separate paychecks 

from both OMB and the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Do you receive only one total paycheck? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Do you maintain different Government-issued 

email accounts for your roles at OMB and CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever conducted CFPB business from 

your OMB email account? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever conducted OMB business from 

your CFPB mail account? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Not—again— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Email. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. I don’t think I have ever done either 

of those things. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. You don’t think. But are you sure, or you are 

not? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I haven’t gone back to check every email, but no. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. OK. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

18 

Mr. MULVANEY. My practice is to do my CFPB work— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So will you please go back, check, and then submit an answer? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Every single one of my emails, Congresswoman? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No, it is not a—well, no. If you have two email 

accounts— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Right. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. —that belong to each one of your two positions, 

then why do you need to use one for the business while conducting 

business with the other? 

Mr. MULVANEY. My point is my practice is to do Bureau work on 

the Bureau email and OMB work on the OMB email. Bureau work 

on the Bureau phone and OMB work—I have three phones, and I 

do my OMB work on my OMB phone. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever charged an OMB-related expense 

to your CFPB expense account, including travel? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever charged a CFPB-related expense 

to your OMB expense account? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Do you have an executive assistant for either of 

your roles at the CFPB or OMB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you ever instructed your executive assistant at OMB to carry out CFPB-related business? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am, which causes a great deal of frustration for both of my executive assistants. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That is why you shouldn’t be there. 

Have you ever instructed your executive assistant at the CFPB 

to carry out OMB-related business? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Mulvaney, the financial crisis and the great 

recession that followed led to five million Americans losing their 

homes to foreclosure, and a million more losing trillions of dollars 

in wealth. The CFPB exists to prevent families from surrendering 

their hard-earned dollars to the deceptive or unsavory business 

practices. 

What lessons did you learn from the financial crisis and the 

great recession, and how are you applying those lessons at the 

CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. You want the lessons of the financial crisis in 35 

seconds? I think the answer is that the financial crisis was a system failure of major proportion. And when any major system fails 

there is no one cause, one single cause. The financial crisis was 

caused by a variety of things, things—a bunch of things that happened at the same time. 

Was abusive lending in the housing market part of it? Absolutely. Can we do better on enforcing the laws? Absolutely. Do we 

look forward to doing that at the Bureau? Absolutely. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That is very encouraging. Let’s wait for the 

numbers to show that. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Duffy, Chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Director Mulvaney. I would just note from the first 

part of this hearing there seems to be a bit of agitation coming 

from the other side of the aisle. And I understand the agitation, because Democrats don’t have a lot of power or control over your directorship of the CFPB, and nor do we on the Republican side, because that was the intent of Congress, to make sure that Congress 

has no power or control over the CFPB. 

And so, when you are a party in power with a President who can 

appoint the director, this in line maybe with your view point, you 

applaud the director because you think they are great. But if you 

are not in power, there becomes a great deal of frustration. And 

again, I would just note that it is by the very structure of the 

CFPB that came from Dodd-Frank that my friends voted for that 

is the cause of that very frustration. 

I would just note to the gentlelady from New York when we talk 

about five million individuals losing their homes, I would argue 

there are a great number of those people who were getting loans 

that were subsidized by the Government because of Government 

policy that put people in homes they couldn’t afford. And by the 

way, we really haven’t modified or changed housing policy in America since the great recession. 

But I want to ask you. Mr. Huizenga brought up the issue of the 

economists. How many economists work at the CFPB? Are there 

400, roughly? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, no, no, no. Congressman, it is 20, I am told. 

Mr. DUFFY. Twenty? OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I thought it was 40, but—OK. 

Mr. DUFFY. OK, 20. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I was saying— 

Mr. DUFFY. In essence, you could—and are these well-paid individuals? 

Mr. MULVANEY. They are. I don’t—I have the numbers someplace, if you really want them. 

Mr. DUFFY. That is OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. But the— 

Mr. DUFFY. But no, no—but so—but you are saying you could reduce the economist staff from 20 to 10 if they spent 100 percent 

of their time working on CFPB issues? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In theory, yes, sir. And the same amount of work 

would get done. It is very, very difficult to reduce the size of a Federal staff. 

Mr. DUFFY. And I will ask you about that in a second. But if that 

is—if you are, on average, making $200,000 a year—and I imagine 

they might make more than that, we complain about the salaries 

at the CFPB, I will save that for a different time—but 10 people, 

200 grand, that is $2 million a year that you could save if you were 

able to reduce the staff and make them actually work on CFPB 

issues. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. If you assume they are working 50 percent 

for—that is exactly right, the math is right. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you. I was never very good at it, so I appreciate your—so—but you can’t fire or modify—you can’t fire anyone 

at the CFPB, is that right? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

20 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is—it would be—it is not accurate to say we 

can’t fire anybody in any circumstances. It is extraordinarily difficult to reduce the size of a Federal bureaucracy. 

Mr. DUFFY. And how about— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Harder at the Bureau than it is at an appropriated agency. 

Mr. DUFFY. And hence how—you have reduced the staff by how 

much? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Ten people since I— 

Mr. DUFFY. Ten people. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Out of 1,700. 

Mr. DUFFY. So the great conservative Mick Mulvaney has reduced the staff by 10 out of 1,700 employees. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Taking a meat cleaver to it. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. OK. And if you wanted to redirect the work of those 

economists, could you do it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, I think we would be able to do that. We will 

have to jump through some hoops to do it with the union, and so 

forth, but I think we will be able to at least get those folks to spend 

their independent research time on things that pertain to the mission of the Bureau. 

Mr. DUFFY. I want to go quick. You are a lawyer, right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. And we think that the Congress, when it crafts legislation, when it uses language in one part of a bill but not in another, they do it intentionally. So if the Congress says that people 

are to come to Congress and testify or appear and testify or appear 

and answer questions, they intend them to come and answer questions. But if for the director they say that you should just appear 

and don’t specify, like they did in other sections, that you answer 

questions or you testify, it was done intentionally. Right? That is 

the way young lawyers learn on statutory construction. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Inside Dodd-Frank the director of FSOC (Financial Stability Oversight Council) is required to report and testify 

before Congress. 

Mr. DUFFY. Testify. 

Mr. MULVANEY. The director of the Office of Financial Research 

is directed to appear and answer questions and testify. I am not 

required to do that. 

Mr. DUFFY. And so it would be our belief that it was the intent 

of Dodd-Frank that you appear but not be required to answer questions. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And that is the interpretation the courts usually— 

Mr. DUFFY. The holy text of Dodd-Frank and the CFPB, it is surprising that they would have that wrong. 

One—my time is almost up. I was the Chair of the Oversight 

Committee, and I asked Director Cordray countless times for information. And oftentimes I would be responded with news clippings 

or press releases from the CFPB. We know that the IG has done 

a number of investigations. With the transition from Cordray to 

Mulvaney, have you seen any evidence of requests that have been 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

21 

made by the IG or the Congress that were not complied with that 

you now have been able to comply with? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. What were they? Quickly. 

Mr. MULVANEY. We have recently come across some documents 

that we believe to be responsive to previous IG requests that were 

not previously produced. 

Mr. DUFFY. Documents in the basement, or were they readily 

available to you, as the director? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In the director’s file. 

Mr. DUFFY. In the director’s file. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time— 

Mr. DUFFY. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Mulvaney, welcome back to Congress. As you 

may have noticed, we on this side do not like your dual role. However— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I will take it better than not liking me, Mr. 

Sherman, but that is all right. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is nothing personal. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I know. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Don’t like the dual role. However, I will point out 

that right now I would assume the Trump Administration is trying 

to determine your successor, who will be a full-time person dedicated to being a handmaiden for the financial services industry. 

I have seen the full-time appointments that Trump has made to 

other positions, and we may wax nostalgic for this day, in that I 

am not sure that Trump will appoint a full-time successor that will 

be more—do things that the Democrats support. 

In the past, Democrats have been opposed to a commission and 

wanted a sole director. It is my understanding that the Chairman 

has changed his mind, and is now for a sole director, too, because 

he anticipates that your sole—that the sole-director successor of 

yours will be the most efficient structure to rapidly repeal all the 

good work done by your predecessor. I would just say that what 

consumers and businesses want is not a lurch to the left or a lurch 

to the right and then another lurch to the left, but steady and ascertainable regulations. 

So there has been a concern that your agency has regulated 

through enforcement. What are you doing to make sure that more 

guidance documents are drafted and released, more regulations are 

published or defined, so that the people can know how to live with 

these rules, other than just looking at the enforcement action and 

trying to divine your policy through what action you have taken? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Actually, I think what we have done, Congressman, is to try and focus more on the formal rulemaking. It is easy 

to send a letter. It is a little bit harder to send guidance. It is hard 

to do rules. But it is the right way to regulate, to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, to go through the appropriate steps to do 

that, because it allows notice and comment, whereas guidance 

might not. Letters certainly do not. 

So we are trying to— 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

22 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well— 

Mr. MULVANEY. —simply go a little bit more by the book. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Where the regulation is unclear, and you are simply making—providing guidance, it is one thing to say— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. —you don’t know what the right policy should be, 

you need notice and comment. Another time you always meant to 

say this, but you said it in a way people can’t fully understand. 

More guidance documents would be— 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I would agree with you, that is the appropriate use of guidance. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN. —helpful. There is the Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act. Are you going to be using your authority to provide a greater 

small-institution exemption from parts of that Act? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We have given notice of our intent to look at 

some changes—again, going through the proper administrative procedures. And I believe the two things we have noticed up were the 

scope of the data set—the statute only requires, I think, 11 data 

points; I think the previous leadership had asked for 25—and also 

look at the size of the—the scope of the financial institutions that 

might be covered. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Section 1022 was designed to give your Bureau 

the power to provide exemption from certain rules as to community 

institutions and smaller institutions. Are you going to use your authority under section 1022 to grant exemptions to community institutions, the smaller banks, the credit unions? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to say 

we are or are not going to do that, because we are going to go 

through the proper procedures. But I think our notice stated of our 

intent to look at the scope gives an indication that we are interested in collecting information on exactly the point that you just 

raised. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Finally, I would like to address this silliness of 

you being required to appear but not testify. I was here when 

Dodd-Frank was written. It was in this room, not Mount Sinai. Not 

every word is perfect. In any other statute where we require somebody to appear, they are expected to respond to questions. 

And Mr. Zuckerberg is across the hall right now, and there is no 

statute that requires him to appear, except he would be subpoenaed and—Mr. Mulvaney, you could have—you certainly remember 

sitting on this side of the dais. I am sure that if a statute required 

a Government official to appear, and that Government official appeared but refused to ask questions, a subpoena would be issued 

by the committee with bipartisan support. So I am glad you have 

decided to answer our questions. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I appreciate that. It would be a fascinating 

question, though, Mr. Chairman, since we are getting into the legal 

technicalities, as to whether or not your rules, which is what the 

subpoenas flow from, bind third parties, which I am. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, 

Chairman of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, Director Mulvaney, to the committee. I appreciate your candid and renshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

23 

freshing testimony today, which continues to expose the breathtaking lack of accountability of the agency that you are now 

charged to lead. And I think you continue to make a powerful argument that your predecessor perhaps unwittingly made, and that is 

that there is a desperate need for a fundamental overhaul of the 

structure of this agency to make it much more accountable. 

Dodd-Frank, as you may know, authorized the Bureau to issue 

a rule that requires disclosure of fees and currency conversion 

rates for remittances. And that rule that was promulgated by your 

predecessor applies to institutions that execute 100 or more remittances annually. 

The Bureau’s role, as it turns out, created a tremendous amount 

of paperwork for credit unions, and slowed down the process, adding additional expenses for those credit unions and customers. 

An example is in my home State of Kentucky, where the Fort 

Knox Federal Credit Union was forced to actually exit the line of 

services that they were offering to their 100,000 members, mostly 

service members and their families, because of the additional cost 

of executing these remittances. And that made it harder for activeduty military personnel—especially those who served at Fort Knox 

and who were deployed overseas on the front lines in South Korea, 

Germany, and other places in the Middle East, and that prevented 

those service members from executing those remittances through 

their Fort Knox Federal Credit Union back to their families. 

I asked your predecessor about this issue, this problem. I assumed that it was an oversight, and that your predecessor would 

have wanted to correct this because he talked a lot about helping 

our veterans and helping our service members. But when I asked 

Director Cordray if he would consider exercising his statutory discretion to fix this rule, here is what he said. 

He said that the Dodd-Frank statute constrained him, and mandated that he put a 100-remittances limit on it. And he actually— 

he didn’t blame those of us on this side of the aisle for that. He 

actually was blaming Democrats on that side of the aisle for voting 

for Dodd-Frank, for tying his hands, and not allowing him to exercise any discretion to help our active-duty military personnel and 

their families. 

So, Director Mulvaney, would you disagree with your predecessor? Do you believe that, under the statute, you have the discretion to provide the relief to these credit unions? And will you exercise it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We do not interpret the statute to say that we 

have no discretion as to the 100 number. 

Mr. BARR. And so thank you for that very different answer from 

your predecessor. Will you consider working with our office and our 

constituents, particularly the Fort Knox Federal Credit Union, to 

perhaps move that disclosure threshold from 100 to 1,000 so that 

our men and women serving abroad can provide those remittances 

back to their families? 

Mr. MULVANEY. There is actually good news on that front, Congressman. As part of the statute, we are required to do a 5-year 

lookback on various rules. This is one of them. We have actually 

already noticed that we are doing that here, and we have requested 

information as to exactly the points that you have raised. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

24 

So I would encourage anybody who is interested in this issue to 

participate in that RFI assessment, that request for information, as 

we gather data to try and determine whether or not that rule 

needs to be changed— 

Mr. BARR. Well, I appreciate that we have leadership at the Bureau now that is actually working for our men and women in uniform, and not against them. 

And Mr. Mulvaney, as you know, the Bureau is not subject to the 

congressional appropriations process. I appreciate the fact that, in 

your third quarter budget request, you noted that by design this 

funding mechanism denies the American people their rightful control over how the Bureau spends their money, which undermines 

the Bureau’s legitimacy, which of course may explain why you have 

all of these accountability issues at the agency that you now lead. 

I have consistently, year after year, term after term, introduced 

the TABS Act, Taking Account of Bureaucrats’ Spending Act, a bill 

that would meet the recommendation in your semi-annual report 

to subject the Bureau to the congressional appropriations process. 

How do you think that legislative change would improve the efficiency and accountability of your agency? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you for the question. And I will say this 

as someone who used to sit where y’all sit. Why y’all don’t want 

to put me on appropriations, I just don’t get it. I really don’t. Why 

not have the opportunity to at least bring me in and ask me how 

I am spending money, if I am spending money to sponsor Dallas 

Stadium or what not? 

What is wrong with putting me on appropriations? It is one of 

the suggestions we make in our quarterly report. I may understand 

why it was set up that way in the first place, but why y’all would 

absolutely voluntarily give up the appropriations process for this 

Bureau I just don’t understand. 

Mr. BARR. Director, a final question. Under the CFPB’s high-cost 

loan rule, Americans now cannot finance a manufactured home 

loan. Manufactured home loans of $50,000 or less have dropped significantly. Will you consider revisiting the high-cost loan rule and 

increase the interest thresholds to help Americans realize the 

dream of home ownership? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Honestly, that is the first time I have heard of 

that one, Mr. Barr. I would be happy to get back to you on that 

one. I apologize. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. I look forward to working with you on 

that, as well. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Budget Director— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. How you doing, Mr. Budget Director? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Doing well, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. Good. You are still the budget director, right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. Is that a full-time or part-time job? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

25 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is a full-time job. 

Mr. MEEKS. Full-time job. And the debt—my colleagues always 

put up the debt numbers and the budget, and we know—we have 

had these big numbers. And so are you focused on that at all? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Oh, I— 

Mr. MEEKS. Any more? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I spend some time on the budget. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. On a full-time basis? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have two full-time jobs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. And two full. Is that—you think the—I don’t know 

many people that work two full-time jobs and do both of them in 

a exemplary manner. If it is—especially when you are talking 

about a budget that is as big as the United States of America’s is, 

and the issues that we have. I would think that the American people would want someone that is focused on the budget. 

And you were initially appointed by the President of the United 

States, from what I understand, to run the budget. Is that correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. OK. Now, also I find—because, just as Mr. Kildee— 

you represented when you were in Congress, of course, my parents’ 

home town, Rick Hill, et cetera—found you being pretty much an 

honest guy, whether we disagree. 

And in your statement you said earlier—and I think you have indicated to Ranking Member Waters that maybe it was—sounded 

like something you had said—you said if—to be perfectly honest, 

you don’t like the—didn’t like the fact that the CFPB exists. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Correct. 

Mr. MEEKS. Is that correct? And— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think my comment was I don’t remember specifically saying that, but I am not denying it. 

Mr. MEEKS. That is not something that would be— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Right, exactly. 

Mr. MEEKS. And you haven’t changed your mind on that, have 

you? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Generally, no. 

Mr. MEEKS. All right. That is right. And so you also said, certain 

things about it being a joke, that the CFPB really has been—and 

it is sad and it is sick. Those are your statements. And those have 

not changed, either, right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think the Bureau screams out to be reformed. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. So if, in fact, it would seem to me, that those statements are true, then what is the best way to get rid of the Bureau? 

Because you never were for the Bureau, you didn’t want the Bureau, you thought it was sick. 

The best way to get rid of the Bureau would be to take it over 

to get rid of it, because that is what your point—it is not—it 

wasn’t—you never were in support of it, you never thought that the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau needed to be. And so now 

you happen to be in power. The President appointed you as budget 

director. You make a—he makes a determination and you see the 

opportunity now to get rid of the Bureau. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

26 

So what do you—how do you get rid of the Bureau? You stop 

doing what it does, helping consumers. So you stop then doing the 

investigations, you stop doing the enforcements, you stop doing the 

kinds of things that the Bureau was put into business, to create, 

to do. 

So then, it seems to me, what you do—illegally, if you have to, 

because you are doing your job as the budget director, the President can’t see anyone else who is more intent on destroying the Bureau than a former Member of Congress who has specifically stated 

that he did not want this Bureau to exist. 

And so I don’t know what it is with this Administration. It seems 

to want to put people, one way or another, into leadership when 

it doesn’t believe in the Bureau itself or in institutions, which is 

what my problem is with this Administration. It seems as though 

it wants to undermine every institution that we have. 

Why do I say that? Well, we have a person that is now the Secretary of Education who doesn’t believe in public education. You 

have a person now who is the head of Environmental Protection 

who doesn’t believe in it, in environmental protection. So then it 

seems consistent that what the President would like to do is to put 

a person to be the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who does not believe, by his own admission, in the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, unlike your predecessor, who believed 

and had a lifelong job of trying to protect consumers. 

Isn’t the fact that you have never in your career protected consumers? 

Mr. MULVANEY. With respect, no, sir. That is not accurate. As I 

have mentioned before, we are protecting consumers in 25 ongoing 

pieces of litigation— 

Mr. MEEKS. But not you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. —against bad actors. Oh, no, no. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. I am just talking about prior to—even prior to this 

job. 

Mr. MULVANEY. To be perfectly— 

Mr. MEEKS. There has not been a thing that you have ever said 

as a Member of this committee, as a Member of Congress, that was 

pro-consumer. And now you are in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or so you want to be— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mexico, Mr. Pearce, 

the Chairman of our Terrorism Finance Subcommittee. 

Mr. PEARCE. Director, nice to see you here. Thanks for taking our 

questions. If you would like to respond—I saw you trying to respond. If you would like to give an answer you can take 45 seconds 

here. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Just very briefly, we are enforcing the law. To 

Mr. Meeks’ point, I have it within my discretion—along the list of 

things that Mr. Hensarling went down that I could do that he 

didn’t talk about in his opening statement, I could today, if I wanted to, dismiss every single one of those 25 pieces of litigation. I 

could stop all 100 investigations that are ongoing right now. We 

have chosen not to do that, because we are still enforcing the law. 

We are just doing it differently and with more restraint than the 

previous leadership was doing. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

27 

I will defend that. I have a different view of the world than my 

predecessor does, just like you have a different view of the world 

than the folks who sit on the other side of the aisle. But we are 

still enforcing the law. I am in the Executive branch of Government, and my job is to enforce the law. We are doing it. We are 

doing it differently than other folks might do it, because elections 

do have consequences. 

But to say that we are not enforcing the law or we are acting 

illegally—and I don’t think Mr. Meeks implied that I was doing 

anything illegally—is just not accurate. 

Mr. PEARCE. One of the charges of our predecessor—or your 

predecessor—was protection of the consumers. And beginning almost at his first day we kept pointing out how he was damaging 

some of the most fragile consumers, and those are the ones who 

live in my district. 

Fifty percent of the homes in my district are manufactured housing. And so, when they lumped—when they defined rural, they put 

one of the most—the least populated districts, counties in the Nation right in with New York City, and they implemented the same 

laws. 

And so I sat yesterday with a banker from that very county, and 

she said still the rules from that agency are choking off their ability to lend money so that most of the banks have just gotten out 

of the products. 

So the definition of rural has gone through many, many changes 

under the previous director. But if you would look at that and see 

if we can un-thread it a bit more, we would be happy to work with 

you. 

We are working with the minority in this committee to try to get 

up the language for the whole balloon notes. That became very 

problematic. Again, the balloons for manufactured housing are set 

in place so they can look at them. They don’t re-amortize, they just 

look at them every 5 years and continue on if the product is still 

in worthy condition. 

And so, if we get language, I would really like for you to use the 

language we have come up with in bipartisan fashion here with the 

Ranking Member’s office and ourselves. So we have that question. 

So finance is another thing. Many times people live their lives, 

they will buy six, seven, eight of these manufactured houses. They 

will live in one, then they will—when they retire, they sell them, 

one at a time. And so the previous director put a cap on that at 

three. If we could extend that back out—what we have done, when 

they put that cap, is we limit finance to people who are very fragile, financially. They are usually at the bottom end of the economic 

spectrum. Usually, they don’t have good credit ratings, and people 

will take a chance on them. 

So it is one of the ways that we make a rural, low-end economy 

work. And the previous director had closed off so many avenues to 

people just trying to get by. And so those things just make common 

sense. 

And we were in a year-long discussion with the previous director, 

and it is almost as if they couldn’t hear, that they didn’t want to 

hear that we were actually out there trying to get consumers pronshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

28 

tected and actually trying to do things that would help them out. 

So just—that is important. 

Now, one of the ways that the previous director really said he 

was working on was data, and I think that I would like for your 

perspective, now that you are in the office. How data-driven were 

they? Because I could never see the correlation, myself. And then 

maybe explain which direction you are going in, in the use of data. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Here is how I would answer that question, is 

that, first of all, I think I mentioned before the role of qualitative 

analysis versus quantitative, which I think is substantively very 

different. Not to say that neither of them have any value, but clearly qualitative analysis can be somewhat subjective, by definition. 

If there is one complaint that I think I have heard from the financial services providers as a group, writ large, is that they felt 

like their input was always ignored. They felt like—and I am not 

saying this is, because I wasn’t there, but they felt like the decision 

had been pre-cooked, and that the Bureau was just checking the 

box when they reached out to folks. 

To the extent anybody felt that way, from consumer advocates to 

industry advocates, we are hoping to do that differently under my 

leadership. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

How are you doing, Mr. Director? I am not sure. I am hearing 

a lot of rumors today. My understanding is—I would like you, right 

from the horse’s mouth. Is it true that you intend to run for the 

Speaker of the House next year? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is interesting, because I don’t think you have 

to be a Member to run, right? 

Mr. CAPUANO. You don’t. 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is— 

Mr. CAPUANO. No, you can be—one more job, wouldn’t hurt. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have two jobs, that is enough for me. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Two is all you want? We might actually be able 

to throw in a few extra bucks for you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Would you vote for me? 

Mr. CAPUANO. It depends. We could talk. 

It depends what you do with the CFPB. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, I am happy with the two I have. Thank you, 

sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Director. Mr. Director, 

I just want to follow up on what Mr. Meeks had to say. And I think 

the litany of people in this current Administration and their beliefs 

really proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, in case anybody wonders, that elections have consequences. 

And I am not surprised that any of those appointments—or at 

least the philosophy shared by any of them—by the Trump Administration. He doesn’t believe in Government, and he won the election. I don’t like that, but it is a fact, and I think people at home 

need to know that. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

29 

I want to talk about a little issue, a smaller issue, a different 

item. I am just curious. At one point you earlier said that discrimination is abhorrent. Do you believe that women should be paid 

equally for the same work as a man? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Actually, I do, and I think that is the law. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I think it is the law, but I am just curious what— 

your beliefs. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Do you believe that African-Americans should be 

paid the same as white people? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. Again, I think that is the law— 

Mr. CAPUANO. And Hispanics and on and on and on. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. People should be paid the same when they do the 

same work. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, I think that is the law, yes, sir. And I 

agree with that. 

Mr. CAPUANO. That is what I want to know. And I am glad. I 

thought you did, but I wanted to hear it. 

Then when that happens, in order to have not just the law, but 

to actually fulfill it, how do we know what is happening if we 

refuse to take information from employers as to how they pay their 

people? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am sorry, I am hard pressed, Mr. Capuano, as 

to how this ties to what the Bureau is doing, helping— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, what it ties to is a direction that you took 

last September to stop the EEOC from instituting a new form that 

they worked on for 7 years—7 years—to try to find out—to try to 

prove, one way or the other, whether employers—and I think most 

of them are, but some employers are not fulfilling their legal requirement. Some employers may be doing it intentionally, may be 

doing it unintentionally. But how could you possibly know, without 

the information? 

Mr. MULVANEY. And Congressman, I am sorry, I don’t mean to 

dodge the question, but I believe that is a—that you are talking 

about something I did in September. It must be OMB. And I recall 

a little bit of something about the changes that we made to the— 

I think it was the EEO1 form, or— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. MULVANEY. The EO1 form, or something like that. But in all 

fairness, I have not looked at that since September. And I am not 

trying to dodge, I would be happy to answer that question— 

Mr. CAPUANO. That is a fair answer. But that is also troubling, 

that you haven’t looked at it since September. If you are going to 

have two full-time jobs, two full-time jobs is what you have, which 

means if you stop something, which you actively took active action 

to prevent this new provision from coming in place, then I think 

you have an obligation to take a look at it, since between September and now, especially when it impacts millions upon millions 

of women and African-Americans and Hispanics—we all know the 

numbers. Women make $.80 on the dollar. African-Americans, I 

think, it is $.57 or $.63. Latinos, 54 cents on the dollar. 

We all say that we want to do something about it, yet the one 

time we take a step toward doing it, you proactively stopped it. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

30 

And I am just wondering. When are you going to get around to 

looking at it, so you can actually do something about it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. And again, Congressman, I am not trying to be 

evasive, but I have not been asked that question, I don’t think, 

since September. And I have done 15 press conferences, and I have 

been in front of Congress 3 or 4 times. So I apologize, I am just 

simply not prepared to talk about that. 

I am not saying that what you said is inaccurate, but I am also 

not admitting that it is true. And I look forward to talking to you 

about it. 

Mr. CAPUANO. It is fair, I am not trying to do a gotcha type of 

thing. And to be honest, I am a little surprised nobody has asked 

you. 

Now, it is, to me, surprising in this day and age that we can 

have a whole group, several classes of people, being intentionally 

or even unintentionally paid less, and yet this Government refuses 

to do anything about it. And I—again, I appreciate it. I am not trying to get you today. But at some point in the near future, I would 

like to hear from you as to when you or your agency plan on taking 

action to correct the situation. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPUANO. With that, I— 

Mr. MULVANEY. And if I suggest—if you want to send me a letter 

at the OMB office, I would be happy to respond to you in writing. 

Mr. CAPUANO. We shall be doing just that. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. With that I yield back my 18 seconds remaining. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Director 

Mulvaney. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Rothfus. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Talk a little bit about this regulation by enforcement, the CFPB with the UDAP, the Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Acts and Practices authority it has, it—you mentioned in your 

op ed about how the CFPB was ‘‘pushing the envelope.’’ 

While there is some precedent that can provide us with an interpretation of what is unfair or deceptive, it is still unclear what 

‘‘abusive’’ means. This allowed your predecessor to regulate by enforcement on a case-dependent basis. It also created uncertainty for 

market participants about what the rules actually were. 

I am wondering if you can comment on why it is important that 

market participants have a clear understanding of the rules. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, I am—thank you for that. And I tell you if 

I wanted to add to the list of things that y’all could help me with, 

help me with the definition of ‘‘abusive.’’ Give me some legislative 

guidance on that, because it is full of gray areas in the way the 

statute is written right now. It is—it can be abusive if it materially 

interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or 

condition of a consumer product, financial product, or takes unreasonable advantage. 

For the lawyers in the room, they will know that those are all 

very, very subjective terms: ‘‘materially unreasonable’’ and ‘‘materially reasonable.’’ It is throughout the statute, which gives a great 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

31 

deal of discretion to my predecessor, and now a great deal of the 

discretion to me. What I think might be material could be very different than what Mr. Cordray intended, and I am not sure that 

was the intent of what Congress wanted to do. 

It is the statute, but if y’all could help me with some guidance 

on what that means, that I think would provide clarity for everybody, because right now you are in the exact circumstance that I 

think Mr. Meeks may have mentioned before, about swinging wildly from one interpretation on the left to another on the right, depending upon who is in charge. That is never a formula for certainty in the marketplace— 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Well, certainty and due process. Where does due 

process come out in the mix on that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Not on that piece of paper. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. I understand the Bureau has published a request 

for information regarding the public reporting of consumer complaint information. This is an important issue, and I applaud the 

Bureau for taking it up. 

Like many on this committee, I am concerned about consumer 

privacy and the potential for consumer complaints to be misinterpreted or misused. This information could be a helpful public resource, if presented correctly. But it could also mislead the public 

if not properly handled. 

I urge you to carefully consider what information should be published and how it should be presented, going forward. I understand 

that you may need to be somewhat constrained in your remarks, 

since the process is still ongoing. But any insight you could provide 

on this issue would be helpful. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do share your concerns, and maybe we can 

talk, if somebody wants to, about some of the data security issues 

that we face, as an agency. I haven’t had that question yet. I would 

be happy to talk about that. But I am very much concerned about 

the privacy of that data, about the use of that data, about the 

unverified nature of some of that data. So we are taking a long, 

hard look at it within the Bureau. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. What would you expect to see if the CFPB were 

subject to an appropriations process? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That we act a lot more accountably to you folks. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. You would have to justify things like an economist 

who might not be spending half of their time on CFPB work? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me put it to you this way. This Bureau has 

been around for what, now, 6, 7, 8 years? Something like that? Did 

y’all know about that before today? I didn’t. It took me—I found 

out about a month ago. Do you think if I had been on—if the Bureau had been under appropriations that someone may have found 

out about that before today? Probably so. 

And you may decide it is a great use of money, and that is fine. 

But my point is an appropriations process helps shed light on 

things, and y’all are voluntarily choosing not to do that, and I do 

hope you would remedy that situation. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Maybe we could shed some light on the construction of the workspace at the CFPB and the kind of— 

Mr. MULVANEY. The construction accounts, the average salary. I 

got—what is it, 380, 381? I think 381 people who work for me that 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

32 

make more than you do. Did y’all have any idea about that? Would 

you have known about—and again, you may think that is completely fine and justifiable, but it is knowledge that you have not 

had for the last several years, because there is simply a lack of 

transparency into the Bureau that would be brought to the fore by 

going through the appropriations process. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield you time, 

if you would like to ask any questions. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I do want to return back to this use of 

the term ‘‘abusive.’’ I am sorry, Mr. Director, is there a clarification? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, the number was 370 folks who work there 

who make more than you, not 381. I apologize. 

Chairman HENSARLING. So with respect to the term ‘‘abusive,’’ 

your predecessor could never answer the question. You gave us the 

statutory definition, which shed absolutely, positively no light. 

So we have the UDAP terms of unfair and deceptive. There is 

long case history on what those mean. We know that the Bureau 

has moved to find some products abusive. But can a product be 

abusive without either being fraudulent, deceptive, or unfair? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Given the definition, I don’t know the answer to 

that question. 

Chairman HENSARLING. So do you consider it to be absolutely redundant? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I consider it to be almost entirely discretionary, 

which frightens me probably even more. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Missouri, Mr. Clay, Ranking Member on the Financial Institutions 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back, Mr. Director. Hopefully your golf game has not suffered over the last few 

months. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is miserable. Mr. Gowdy beats me regularly 

now, which I can’t stand. 

Mr. CLAY. Let me say that I welcome your discussion this morning. And I would like to talk about the semi-annual report of the 

CFPB and your role to address the fair lending mission of the Bureau. 

I want to turn your attention to a February 2018 article published by the St. Louis Post Dispatch—my staff will share it with 

your staff—about a couple wanting to purchase a home in a predominantly African-American community, but was encouraged by 

the loan officer of U.S. Bank to look in other neighborhoods. So a 

bank loan officer is virtually steering borrowers to other neighborhoods, as the article stated. I believe that is redlining, and is 

breaking the law. 

This being the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, how 

will you ensure that lending discrimination is not a prevalent practice among lenders? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The same way it has been done since this Bureau was created. Like I said, we have 100—the reason I turned 

around to ask the question is I did not know if we have an active 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

33 

investigation of U.S. Bank going right now, and we are not really 

sure. Again, there is— 

Mr. CLAY. OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. —nearly 100 of them. But that process has not 

changed. I have not changed the investigative process, we have not 

changed the sue-or-settle process. We are continuing to enforce the 

law. 

And if it turns out—granted, we both know that sometimes 

things we read in the newspaper aren’t entirely accurate— 

Mr. CLAY. Sure, sure. 

Mr. MULVANEY. But under certain facts and circumstances, that 

would be perceived as being illegal activity, and something that we 

would pay attention to and seek to remedy. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Well, the Bureau’s Office 

of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity has had many successes, 

including record court settlements for consumers who were illegally 

discriminated against in credit card, mortgage, and indirect auto 

lending. And you recently made changes to diminish the powers 

and role of their critical office. 

Is it your view that these laws simply aren’t a priority, or that 

you don’t intend to enforce— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Neither of those things. And I would actually— 

I don’t agree with the representation that we are—diminishing the 

powers. I have mentioned before it does—it has two functions. It 

does a supervision enforcement, which is part of the Office of Fair 

Lending, and then it does an education component. 

Within CFPB, those things traditionally have been separated. 

We have an Office of Supervision and Enforcement, and an Office 

of Education. And all I did was simply put the two things within 

fair lending under what I considered to be the appropriate branch 

of the organization. 

Mr. CLAY. And you still believe— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Did not lay off a single person, did not change 

anybody’s job description. I think they may change who they answer to, but their duties have not changed. It is simply a re-organization within the Bureau. 

Mr. CLAY. OK. Final point, then. Appraisals of real estate appear 

to be a contributor to discrimination in our housing market. And 

as you are probably aware, African-American family wealth is onetenth of white American family wealth. Do you think the CFPB has 

a role to play in eliminating racial discrimination in our housing 

market? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We absolutely have a role to play in eliminating 

discrimination in the housing market. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. And you know, having served with you, I have always 

found you to be a straight shooter. And if you see—and you call 

balls and strikes. And if you see something wrong, you don’t shy 

away from it. So hopefully, in this instance, we can work with your 

Bureau to try to root out discrimination. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, and I will share the article with you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

34 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Acting Director 

Mulvaney. It is good to see you here today. It is always a pleasure 

to welcome a former Member of this committee to testify, and we 

miss having you sit amongst us. And I also miss you and will miss 

you at the baseball practice that—our team has always been better 

with you on it. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Still hoping to be invited to a couple of the practices. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Be nice to me, then. All right. 

You are right when you say that the CFPB is far too powerful 

with precious little oversight of its activities. Far too long the Bureau has taken actions which unfairly target businesses, hurt customers, and impose big-government policies with far-reaching implications for the financial market. Your leadership, as acting director of the CFPB, has become a welcome change from that of your 

predecessor. I am glad, too, that our friends on the other side of 

the aisle are finally recognizing you as the rightful acting director. 

First question, I applaud the important work that this Administration has done to roll back some of the unconstitutional overreaching authority of the Bureau, but I also recognize that more 

needs to be done. So what can be done to ensure that under any 

new director or Administration the CFPB cannot reverse course 

and again enact failed policies that harm American consumers and 

businesses? 

Mr. MULVANEY. You have to change the statute. The way the 

statute it written now, in order to prevent that pendulum swinging 

from the right to the left, from the right to the left with alternating 

Administrations, you have to change the statute. That is why I say 

that it is the DNA, it is the structure of the Bureau that needs to 

be fixed. 

I can fix things the way that y’all want me to fix them, OK, and 

would upset those folks. And then, if a Democratic Administration 

comes in, they will fix them the way these folks would like to see 

it and it would upset you folks. But it wouldn’t bring very much 

constancy or certainty to the markets. Markets—including certainty for the consumers. 

So that is why I say, in order to fix it, you have to take the discretion away from the Bureau—most specifically away from the director—and take back the authority as the legislature of the country. And that is why we have made the specific—the four specific 

recommendations in the semi-annual quarterly report. We would 

love to take you up on those things. 

That is why we support a lot of the work that this committee has 

done on a bipartisan basis to reform the Bureau. But it needs to 

change in the law. Otherwise, it will go back and forth and back 

and forth and back and forth. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The next question I have for you concerns the Bureau use of discretion rulemakings. Congress gave the CFPB the 

authority under section 1022 of Dodd-Frank to exempt institutions 

based on size. Yet in the past it has not exercised that authority. 

In fact, I have a bill, the Community Financial Institution Exemption Act, that would strengthen section 1022 by exempting 

credit unions and community banks under $50 billion in assets 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

35 

from the CFPB rulemakings, unless the CFPB and other Federal 

regulators have cause to include them. 

So should the Bureau take better advantage of its authority to 

exercise 1022 authority in future rulemakings? 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I think we have already indicated an interest in doing that. As I discussed earlier, on the—our notice of what 

we are going to review in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the 

HMDA rules, are the scope and what financial institutions are covered. The size of the financial institutions that we are going to 

cover is exactly one of the things we want to gather information on 

and take a look at. And it is pursuant to the authority you have 

just referenced. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Good. Third, since your arrival you have brought 

about a starkly different mission and culture at the Bureau than 

your predecessor. What steps have you taken to right-size the organization, and what bureaucratic hurdles prevent you from hiring, 

firing, or changing the role of personnel and office structure as 

needed to fulfill the Administration’s vision for the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Nothing limits my—well, nothing. Almost nothing limits my ability to hire. The only limitation I have on hiring 

people is the amount of money I am allowed, by law, to draw down 

from the Federal Reserve. 

There are significant restrictions on my ability to reduce the size 

of the force, significant restrictions on my ability to re-assign people. There is a restriction on where this office can physically be located. So there are a bunch of restrictions on the actual operation 

of the Bureau itself. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back to the 

Chair. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding to the 

Chair. 

Mr. Mulvaney, I am curious, as I look at some of the rulemaking 

that has occurred prior to you coming to the committee—I am 

sorry, to the Bureau. 

For example, this committee, as you probably know, since you 

were here, put out several staff reports indicating how CFPB’s indirect auto lending guidance was essentially unlawful, how it hurt 

consumers, how many consumers were forced to pay over $500 

more in interest. And indeed, our investigations revealed that the 

CFPB’s own attorneys questioned their own legal theories. Perhaps 

this was part of that pressing the envelope. How come this guidance hasn’t been formally withdrawn? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are reviewing it. 

Chairman HENSARLING. That is the answer? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are reviewing it now, yes, sir. And I usually 

don’t go into the internal discussions between us and our lawyers 

and stuff, so— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Director Mulvaney, 

welcome. Thank you for appearing before this committee to help us 

with our work. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

36 

I do want to touch upon a couple things. One is I know that 

there is some contest about the appropriateness of your appointment, and so I don’t want any of my questions or my engagement 

with you to count against those who might challenge the appropriateness of that appointment. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Understood. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. However, I do want to touch on one thing that you 

mentioned at the outset, and that is that you are not required to 

come before this committee and testify, that you could—I think I 

am quoting you—sit there and twiddle your thumbs. 

I do want to point out—first of all, do you—were you saying that 

in jest? I know that you are fairly comfortable here, having been 

a Member. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, sir. And I hope I have proven by my responses that I am interested in answering— 

Mr. LYNCH. Oh, yes, yes. I am just— 

Mr. MULVANEY. So— 

Mr. LYNCH. I am just—I know you are not standing on that 

point. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. I am just questioning whether you actually believe 

in it. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, I do. I—any lawyer will tell you that when 

you are faced with competing language, similar language in two 

sections of a statute, and one says X and one says X plus Y— 

Mr. LYNCH. All right, OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. —we assume that there is— 

Mr. LYNCH. I just wanted to test that. You realize it is the same 

language that is in the Federal Reserve Act, where we have the 

Chairman of the Federal Reserve come up here and testify. He is 

just required to appear, as well. And I would say on behalf of Congress and you as a Member, we never would allow the Chairman 

of the Federal Reserve Board to come up here and just sit there 

and twiddle his thumbs and not respond to Congress. We have an 

oversight responsibility. 

And I hope it is not reflective of your view of our role here, that 

you could somehow resist or refuse to engage with us, especially 

where you have the responsibility over the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau. And, maybe that is something for the lawyers 

to fight out later on, but I certainly want to maintain Congress’ 

ability to have you engage in a meaningful way. 

On top of that, we know—I served with you. You served honorably, and you stuck to your guns, no question about it. But you 

were clearly, clearly one of the people who was most hostile to the 

creation and operation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I wasn’t here for the creation. But yes, sir, it is 

fair to say that I was hostile to the existence of the Bureau. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many 

on our side of the aisle, those who have the highest hopes for consumer protection, would see you the fox in the hen house, right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Doesn’t surprise me at all. No, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. There is some credence to that. And before you 

took over, we had about one investigation a week that was going 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

37 

on, we had—we still have a million complaints to the—outstanding 

to the portal, the CFPB website. We got stuff like Wells Fargo, 

where they are actually robbing their customers, creating false accounts and—so the need for enforcement has not gone away. And 

I know you say you have only laid off 10 people. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have not laid off anybody, but the—we have— 

Mr. LYNCH. All right, so you got 10—I am just wondering. Since 

you are not doing enforcement like Cordray was doing, your predecessor, what are the enforcement people doing? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, I don’t think it is fair, Congressman, to 

say we are not doing enforcement. You mentioned one investigation— 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, you haven’t initiated any enforcement actions. 

We had, like, one a week before you got there. And then you got 

there and, as I said before, you are hostile to the operation of the 

CFPB, you are not into protecting consumers, and all of a sudden 

the investigations stop. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, I— 

Mr. LYNCH. They stop. So we got a goose egg. We got thousands 

before, you get in there and now we got zero. The clear implication 

is that the people who were enforcing before are not enforcing any 

more. And all I want to know is what the heck are they doing now, 

because they are not enforcing the law. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I will respectfully disagree with some of the 

representations there. But here is how it works. If you give me just 

a moment, I will do this very quickly. 

There is a process, OK? It is a tunnel. And at the beginning of 

the tunnel— 

Mr. LYNCH. I know. You got three buckets. I heard that already. 

But one bucket is— 

Mr. MULVANEY. But I never actually explained it, though. 

Mr. LYNCH. That is the enforcement initiation bucket—is empty. 

You are not doing that— 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. —any more. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And that is what I am trying to tell you, sir. It 

is not empty. It is simply—when you look at the— 

Mr. LYNCH. It is what Cordray left you, but you are not doing 

any initiation of any enforcement. You testified to that earlier, sir. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I answered a question, Congressman, which is 

have I filed any lawsuits since I have been here. The answer is no. 

That does not mean we are not doing supervision or enforcement. 

And again, I would be happy to explain that in writing to you, if 

I need to, about how the process works— 

Mr. LYNCH. You initiate—tell me—all right. Give me one case 

that you have brought since you got there. 

Mr. MULVANEY. As I said we have not filed any lawsuits— 

Mr. LYNCH. There you go. 

Mr. MULVANEY. —since I have been there. 

Mr. LYNCH. All I can say. All right. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LYNCH. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Maine, Mr. Poliquin. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

38 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you, Mr. Mulvaney. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, for the time. 

Mr. Mulvaney, over here. Thank you very much. Mr. Mulvaney, 

just to make sure I understand this and everybody watching understands this, you do not have a directive to come here and answer 

our questions. Is that correct, sir? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am sorry? 

Mr. POLIQUIN. You do not have the directive in statute to answer 

our questions today. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I believe that the statute is written in such a 

way that allows me not to— 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. So you could come here and just tell us to 

pound sand. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I believe that to be the case. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. Second of all, we don’t appropriate— 

Mr. MULVANEY. And so could anybody else who sits in this chair. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Yes, I understand, sir. Congress, i.e. the people’s 

representatives, do not appropriate any money to CFPB. You get 

your earnings from the Fed. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Correct. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. And I remember when Ms. Yellen was here, 

Chair Yellen was here about a year ago, Mr. Barr asked her specifically, ‘‘Do you oversee the budget at all of the CFPB,’’ and she 

couldn’t answer the question. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think the answer is no. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. The statute certainly does not provide for any 

oversight by the Federal Reserve over the budget of the— 

Mr. POLIQUIN. And you don’t report to any board? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, sir. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, I don’t report to anybody. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. So we don’t appropriate any money to you, you 

don’t report to any board. The head of the CFPB can be removed 

for cause from—with the—by the President, but only for cause. 

Correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is what the statute says. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. Mr. Mulvaney, I remember—and we agree on 

a lot of things here—I remember my time as State treasurer in 

Maine, and we ran into a certain type of organization in the affordable housing space called Maine State Housing Authority. And as 

State treasurer, I was on that board, along with others. I will never 

forget this as long as I live. 

We had an executive director with a 5-year term appointed by 

the Governor that could not be replaced, except for cause. The individual did not report to any board, including the board that I sat 

on, which was their board. She didn’t report to us, or he didn’t report to us. And there was no appropriation of State funds. 

Now, what we found, lo and behold, was you had an organization 

very similar to yours that you now head, and the problem we had 

with Maine State Housing Authority was many, one of which was 

they were spending about $300,000 of taxpayer moneys for 1-bedroom apartments, when the average single family home with 3 bedrooms, a bath-and-a-half on a quarter acre of land was about 160 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

39 

grand, and we had 6,000 people on a waiting list to come in out 

of the cold. 

So you are coming to us today and saying—thank goodness you 

are there. You run an organization that is not accountable to the 

American people, has no appropriation of funds, and you can tell 

us to pound sand whenever we ask for something. Correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I believe that to be the case. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. Now, Mr. Barr mentioned— 

Mr. MULVANEY. If I want to spend $300,000 like that, I probably 

could. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. By the way, how are you doing with your downtown office building? What have you folks spent on that so far? 

Mr. MULVANEY. $242 million. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Do you own the building? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. I remember myself asking that question of 

the former director a couple years ago. That hasn’t changed. You 

finished the building yet? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. OK. Wow. Do you have multiple offices, or is this 

your only office, Mr. Mulvaney? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We have two office buildings in this city, and 

then we have regional offices in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Are you able, under statute, to consolidate operations to save money? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Why don’t you do that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are exploring that possibility right now. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Got it. 

Mr. Barr a short time ago mentioned that—and I will give you 

the numbers here—in 2014 there were roughly 56,000 loans, smalldollar loans, that were extended for folks that want to buy manufactured housing. Two years later, there were about 36,000 loans 

that were extended for the small-dollar loans for manufactured 

housing. That is a drop of about a third of the number of loans extended to buy manufactured housing in an economy that was improving. 

Do you think that has anything to do with the enforcement of the 

CFPB and scaring the daylights out of businesses, meaning that we 

are not going to go as much by rulemaking, which we make up as 

we go along, but instead, if we don’t like what we see, we will just 

threaten enforcement? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I certainly think that we run the risk, when we 

pass rules and regulations, of chilling the providing of credit to consumers. Yes— 

Mr. POLIQUIN. What is the one thing, Mr. Mulvaney, you can 

come to us today and ask Congress to help you fix the mess you 

have inherited? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Put me on appropriations. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Meaning that the taxpayers will appropriate 

money to you and then ask you questions about why and how you 

are spending the money? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

40 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is sloppy, and we know it can be nasty, and 

I recognize why it was done like this, but that is your job. That is 

what you are supposed to be doing. You are supposed to be spending taxpayer dollars—I cannot believe I can walk down the street 

and get $700 million and not have to explain to anybody. That is 

just wrong. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. In January you released the fall of 2017 rulemaking agenda to the fall 2017 united—excuse me, unified agenda 

of Federal regulatory—de-regulatory actions issued by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. That is over at OMB. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Good. Among the key rulemaking initiatives is one 

relating to overdraft services, which set out the requirements for 

overdraft-related disclosures. Will this overdraft be included in the 

spring rulemaking agenda? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have just been informed that our spring agenda 

won’t include that line item. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Will not include that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Correct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. When you go down that path, Mr. Mulvaney, I implore you to make sure you get voices from everybody. This is incredibly important to our community banks and credit unions. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now declares a 5-minute recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HENSARLING. The committee will come to order. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mulvaney. 

Good to have you back. Enjoyed working with you on the committee, when we worked together. Over here. 

Mr. Mulvaney, first of all, I want to point out that what you see 

coming from our side of the aisle and our questions, our concerns, 

they are not just ours. They are not just Democratic concerns. 

These are concerns and worriations (sic) of the American people. 

The whole business of your undermining the Office of Fair Lending 

and Equal Opportunity, that is real, Mr. Mulvaney. And something 

has to be done about it immediately to correct it. That is what the 

American people feel. 

The fact that you had two very vital important agencies—is this 

Nation so weak in executive management leadership that we have 

to have you over two critical agencies that handles—one handles 

the budget and finances of the Federal Government, the other protecting the financial transactions and activities of the American 

people? Come on. Somebody is suffering there. 

You are a very talented young man, but no matter— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am just glad to be described as young, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. These agencies are being disrespected, they are being 

demeaned, the fact that they do not have a person at the top of 

each of these agencies. 

But then, on top of that, you are clearly out to destroy the CFPB. 

And you really make no bones about it. There is a—there—I don’t 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

41 

like the CFPB. It turns up being a joke. And that is what the 

CFPB really has been in a sick, sad way. And some of us would 

like to get rid of it. That is what you said. And that is wrong. 

But here is the point. The point is that you are the prime example of why we, when we passed Dodd-Frank, when we passed the 

CFPB, we made it a commission for this very purpose. The fact 

that you are in there with the mission from your President to dismantle and destroy the CFPB—now, hey, I am not jumping on you 

for doing what your boss wants to do. 

All I am simply saying is that that is why we made it a commission pointing out. And we have to come to Jesus on that moment 

and understand going forward why it is important, why we do not 

need to have the management and the protection of the financial 

transactions of the American people changing every 4 years at the 

whim of the wind of changing Administrations. And so I hope that 

we can get that. 

But anyway, I wanted to get those points out so you understand 

this is real serious here. 

This is a—and let me tell you I represent Democrats and Republicans. I have one of these huge crossover districts. I go one county 

over from the Alabama line. So what I am trying to tell you is this 

is a concern of the American people, and that we have to deal with 

it. 

But I do want to—I tell you what I am disappointed in more 

than anything else is the fact that in your report you mention nothing about your Operation Catalyst, this catalyst group that you 

have that is designed to go in here and develop rules and regulations for Fintech, our very innovative and new frontier of working 

in the—combining our financial services with our emerging and 

fast, rapidly changing technology. And you have that. 

Could you tell us—could you give us an update on this catalyst 

project that you have there? The reason I want you to do that is 

my staff and I, we are working on legislation—I am the Democratic 

Chair of the Fintech Caucus—so we can bring some harmonization. 

But tell us what you are doing with Fintech, and tell us about this 

catalyst project. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Very briefly, just because 

it is not in the quarterly report or semi-annual report doesn’t mean 

it is not a priority. When we wrote the semi-annual report, what 

we did is we went to the statute that said the semi-annual report 

should contain the following things, and we followed the statute, 

and the Fintech catalyst is not part of the statutory requirements. 

So that is why it is not in the report. It doesn’t mean it is not important to us. And it is. 

I don’t know if you remember this or not. I am actually the cofounder of the Blockchain Caucus here in my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, you were there, and that is why— 

Mr. MULVANEY. So I am very interested in— 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, that is why I was surprised. 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are spending a good bit of time trying to figure out a way to create—it is called, for lack of a better word, a 

Fintech sandbox, a new technology sandbox, to try and figure out 

a way to allow these new industries to develop without the type of 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

42 

regulation that stifles them, while still protecting consumers at the 

same time. 

It is a balancing act, but we do—it is a priority for us, we are 

spending time on it— 

Mr. SCOTT. Very good. 

Mr. MULVANEY. —we have some really good people on it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I would like for you to have my staff, or—my 

staff, who is helping to put this legislation together to meet with 

yours. 

But what about the no-action letters that are—do you attend— 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are—we continue to look at that as a potential tool. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right, thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time— 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Director Mulvaney, thank you. I am over here. Good to see you. 

And grateful for your service. I really enjoyed serving with you 

here, and grateful for the work that you are doing at CFPB and 

OMB. I know it has just got to be a ton of work. I can’t imagine. 

But grateful for your willingness and the good things that are happening. 

And overwhelmingly, the response I am hearing from my constituents is gratitude. A lot of my community banks, others, really 

recognize the good work you are doing of bringing some accountability to a Bureau that has been totally unaccountable. So thank 

you for that. 

Two specific things. I want to thank you for revisiting the Home 

Mortgage Disclosure Act regulations. I agree with the principle of 

reporting this information to fight against discrimination in housing, but our rules should also recognize the cost. In this case, potentially unnecessary and burdensome reporting of information and 

also potential privacy issues if this information were made public. 

I also want to thank you for revisiting portions of the pre-paid 

card rule, and extending the effective data. I believe some regulation is appropriate, especially consumer-friendly disclosures. But 

that doesn’t mean we should have regulations that preclude consumer-friendly financial products. So thank you for your work, especially in those two. 

I want to start off. Earlier you were being asked about your enforcement posture, and you mentioned three buckets. You didn’t 

get—have a chance to finish. I wonder, in 30 seconds or a minute, 

if you could clarify what is happening. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure, real quickly. There is a transition, there is 

a pipeline when it comes to enforcement actions, which—we are 

running, at any particular time, about 100 investigations. And we 

maintain that, which means that roughly two roll on, two roll off 

a week, on average, right? We maintain about 100. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Director Mulvaney, could you pull the 

microphone a little closer to you? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

43 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. When the investigation turns up wrongdoing that we believe rises to the level of having to move to an enforcement action, then it moves into the bucket that we call sue or 

settle, where we sit down with folks and say, ‘‘Look, you have misbehaved, we think we have you,’’ and we are either going to file 

suit or you are going to settle and you are going to pay us, just like 

you would in any particular litigation. And if we are unable to resolve it there, then it moves into litigation. 

And the only thing that has been different or—the only thing 

that has happened that seems to be noteworthy in my 5 months 

there is we just don’t have anything move out of sue and settle into 

the actual litigation. 

Once there is a litigation we then pursue it to the end, and those 

are the 25 ongoing pieces of legislation that we—excuse me, of litigation that we continue to pursue under my leadership. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. That is helpful. Let me move on to 

some other questions. 

You have spoken at length about the need for structural reforms 

at the Bureau. I absolutely agree with you, especially the focus on 

bringing CFPB under the appropriations process. And with your 

semi-annual report you propose a lot of great ideas, many of which 

we advocated together when we served together on the Financial 

Services Committee. 

There is one specific structural change that I am hoping you 

might be able to speak to after having spent a few months running 

the CFPB, and that would be a bipartisan commission to oversee 

the agency. As I know you remember, Randy Neugebauer had a bill 

calling for this, and Dennis Ross recently introduced a bipartisan 

bill 

Is it still your belief a commission structure for the CFPB provides greater certainty to market participants and consumers, and 

would it make the agency more technical and less partisan in nature? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It does. I still believe that, and I think I was a 

cosponsor of that bill when I was here. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, thank you. During your time on the committee we spent a lot of time discussing issues with the CFPB’s 

Qualified Mortgage rule, and the Washington-centric underwriting 

criteria prescribed for lenders. Ironically, the rule provides special 

treatment for mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie, which arguably obstruct private capital from entering the mortgage market 

by giving Government loans a distinct regulatory advantage. 

The so-called QM patch is set to expire on January 20, 2021. I 

wonder, do you plan to let the QM patch expire? If so, have you 

thought at all about how to make sure that there is a smooth transition for private capital to step up and fill the void? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Congressman, this falls into the same bucket 

that I have—I mentioned a couple times on a couple of other 

things. This is part of our statutory 5-year look-back, and we are 

currently reviewing that, per the statute, collecting data, and so 

forth. So it is not appropriate to—me to tell you where I think it 

is going to go, because we don’t look at that with a pre-determined 

outcome, but we are reviewing those issues, and the merits that 

you just raised will be considered. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

44 

Mr. HULTGREN. Good. That is all we can ask. 

Under the past leadership of CFPB one person was both the student loan ombudsman and the head of this Office of Students. The 

former is appointed by the Treasury Secretary and the latter is 

hired by the CFPB director. In general, do you believe it is important for an ombudsman to be impartial and independent, and will 

you commit to separating these two positions? I believe this will 

contribute to a more balanced approach for regulating private lenders of student loans. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am not sure I am in a position to commit to 

it, but I share some of the concerns, and we are currently reviewing the role of that particular personnel. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. Last couple of seconds. In general, do you 

believe the House could improve on S. 2155, the Senate regulatory 

bill? I think we all believe it is full of a number of important provisions, but do you believe there is an opportunity for the House to 

improve it before it is sent to the President’s desk for— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do, and I look forward to talking about that 

more perhaps later in the hearing. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you very much. My time has expired, I 

yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, Ranking 

Member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mulvaney, thank you for being here. Can—do you have any 

idea how long you are going to be director of OMB and the head 

person over at the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Here is what I—the OMB position I will stay as 

long as the President will have me. That is not a term-limited type 

of position. So that is a separate question. 

The CFPB, which I think is what most people ask me about, here 

is what I know about that role, Mr. Cleaver, which is that I am 

allowed under the Vacancies Act to stay for 6 months, which I believe ends—expires June 22nd. And if the President has not formally nominated somebody by that point, then I would have to 

leave. 

If, however, the President has formally nominated someone prior 

to that date, then I am allowed to stay until such time as that person is confirmed by the Senate. 

So the bottom line is I don’t know the answer to your question. 

We tell folks, we plan—given how long it’s taken the Senate to take 

up confirmations, probably well into the fall or the end of this year. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, my guess is that there won’t be a nominee by 

June. And so I— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Then I would have to leave on June 22nd. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. But you can stay there until there is a nominee. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, sir. If there’s no nominee made, I must vacate the office June 22nd. 

Mr. CLEAVER. OK. Because, a concern I had—and thank you for 

the clarification. Because I do believe that Confucius, about 25 centuries ago, said, ‘‘The person who chases two rabbits catches neinshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

45 

ther.’’ And I believe that. And somebody else said something, ‘‘No 

one can have two masters.’’ And I believe that as well. 

And in my real life, I’m a United Methodist pastor. And the 

Catholic and Methodist churches actually have bishops who can 

send them places, whether they want to go or not. And I would 

never, ever become the head of the AAI, the American Atheist Institute, because I just—I don’t like what they do, what they stand 

for. So I just wouldn’t go. That just, that would be the end. Because 

it would be difficult for me to go into a place when I disagree with 

the premise of its existence. 

So I’m trying to understand the complexity. You’re a smart person, and so I’m sure you’ve done the cerebral analysis of this. So 

help me understand how you could accept going someplace where 

you have a disdain for the existence of that place. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure. That’s actually fairly easy. This is how I 

explain it to people. It’s my job. I’m a member of the Executive 

branch of Government. I don’t get to change the law. My job is to 

enforce the law. The President has asked me to go over and run 

the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. There is a statute 

that says what it shall and shall not do, and I am doing those 

things. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I know. But is there—you don’t feel a conflict that 

you’re going to a place that you are completely alien to its very 

being? You don’t have any kind of internal conflict to do that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In fact, I’ve never thought about this, Congressman, but I guess I could make the argument that a healthy skepticism might make me a better manager. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, I think we all—we have to have a healthy 

skepticism about, I think, a lot. I think that helps us, our humanity. But to get up every day and go to a place that you wish did 

not exist seems to me would be some kind of internal conflict that 

you that’s not easy to resolve. 

Mr. MULVANEY. That’s a fair point. I want to make this clear, I 

really enjoy the job. The people there have been really, really good 

to work with. Yes, there’s a small minority of people who hate me 

and try and undermine my leadership. But for the most part, some 

of the best quality bureaucratic work that I have seen since I’ve 

been in the Administration comes out of the Bureau. So no, I actually enjoy doing it. I just do it differently than my predecessors. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. My time is out. It would be a great theological 

argument. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Time of the gentleman has expired, sir. 

Now, I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director, for 

taking the time to be able to be here. I wanted to follow up a little 

bit on my colleague, Mr. Hultgren’s question in regards to the Senate regulation bill. And you’d indicated that you’d like to be able 

to point to some of the legislation that we passed out in the House, 

how we might be able to improve that to make sure that we’re getting sensible regulations in place. And would you like to address 

that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I’m a big fan of regular order, and the way that 

I think it’s supposed to work, or at least it used to work when I 

watched it on television as a kid, was that the Senate would pass 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

46 

a version of a bill. The House would pass a version of a bill. And 

they’d try and work out the differences to see if they could compromise. I think that is the best formula for arriving at the best 

result. 

I happen to like just about everything in the Senate bill. I also 

recognize the fact it doesn’t contain several dozen if not more bills 

that have passed out of this chamber on a bipartisan basis and the 

larger House chamber on a bipartisan basis, which does make me 

wonder, why can’t we add that to the Senate bill? 

There’s some really good things, that y’all—and I was here when 

you did some of it—worked together to try and improve DoddFrank. And I think it makes complete sense to continue the debate 

on whether or not that bipartisan support can translate into bipartisan support across on the other side of the Hill. So I applaud 

what the Senate has done. I know it’s not easy to pass a piece of 

bipartisan legislature anywhere, let alone in the Senate. And I 

think they’ve done an excellent job. I don’t think that necessarily 

needs to be the end of the analysis. 

And to the extent that y’all have done really good work to find 

ways, on a bipartisan basis, to improve Dodd-Frank, God bless you. 

And let’s see if we can’t add that to the Senate bill. If not, the Senate bill is a great fall back. But if it can get better, why wouldn’t 

we accept that as a really good outcome? 

Mr. TIPTON. And I appreciate that. So if we had a bill that came 

out of this committee with unanimous support, unanimous support 

on the House floor, you don’t see that as a poison pill? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I know how hard it is to get unanimous support 

in this chamber and on the House floor. So that means that the bill 

might actually have a chance of passing in the Senate. So I welcome any efforts to fix, to reform as much of the Dodd-Frank, especially the parts that pertain to the Bureau, as you possibly can. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. Well, and when you’re talking about DoddFrank, I think one thing we’ve certainly heard from home, particularly from our small community bankers, our small credit unions, 

is the one-size-fits-all approach out of Dodd-Frank. And you embrace, I assume, the ability to be able to tailor those regulations 

to be able to meet the size of the institution, the applicability of 

the issues they face? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. I spoke to a group of community bankers 

just this week. And accepting for sake of the discussion that the 

Bureau was created in order to prevent the next financial crisis— 

we can have a really interesting conversation about whether or not 

it could do that, whether or not it’s the proper role, but let’s assume that for sake of this discussion. I don’t think anybody in this 

chamber would suggest that the community banks or the credit 

unions were the cause of the financial crisis and they should be 

treated the same as the large financial institutions, which in many 

circumstances is what we do, what Dodd-Frank does and what the 

Bureau does. And I’m going to try really hard to try and fix that, 

to tailor regulations to the size and the sophistication of the various entities that we oversee, because I just think that makes 

sense. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, and I want to applaud that. I think that that’s 

a little change in direction from the previous director, just to be 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

47 

able to apply the actual law. I think, could you give a little more 

detail when you’re talking about some of the quantitative analysis 

that you’re looking at, when you’re making some of your decisions? 

Maybe expand on that a bit for us. 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, I just want more data. I’ve read through a 

copy of the cost-benefit analyses on a couple of the previous rules 

that we put out, and I was just not—it would not have met my 

test. And that’s how I look at things, is that the lawsuit we dismissed, OK, the only one by the way—the filter that I ultimately 

came down to, there’s a lot of factors that went into it. But the ultimate filter was, would I have brought that lawsuit if I were the 

director at the time it came time to file. And that was the only one 

I said no to, and that’s why we dismissed. And I bring the same 

analysis to the cost-benefit analysis that I see, which is, I look at 

the stuff and say, if I had been the director, when this came across 

my desk, would this have satisfied me to be sufficient to make a 

final decision, the answer would have been no. And I want to do 

better with that moving forward to where we get better and more 

cost-benefit analysis before we make final determinations. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I will yield 

to you for any further questions you may have. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. With 

respect, among other things, to the QM rule, the University of 

Maryland researchers issued a paper last year that said, quote, 

‘‘Dodd-Frank aimed at reducing mortgage fees and abuses against 

vulnerable borrowers. The lending regulations of Dodd-Frank actually triggered a substantial redistribution of credit from the middle 

class households to wealthy households.’’ 

Under section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act, with respect to the 

CFPB, it says, ‘‘In prescribing the rule under the Federal consumer 

financial laws, the Bureau shall consider the potential benefits and 

costs to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial products or 

services resulting from such rule.’’ 

Let’s see. We are well over time. But perhaps one of the other 

individuals on our side of the aisle could let you address that issue. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Mulvaney. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Ellison, it’s good to be back. 

Mr. ELLISON. You know what the Doctrine of Absurdity is in 

statutory construction? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I’m sorry— 

Mr. ELLISON. Remember law school? 

Mr. MULVANEY. —it’s been a long time. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. So help me on that one. 

Mr. ELLISON. So you started out by saying that under the law 

you could just come in here and sit there. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think that’s one interpretation. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. Well, under the law of statutory interpretation, which I know you know, if an interpretation would lead to an 

absurd result, then you don’t apply it that way. And you sitting 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

48 

there playing Candy Crush, as the Chairman has pointed out, or 

twiddling your thumbs, as you pointed out, that would be an absurd result. So anyway, we start out with that. Let me ask you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I hope— 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me ask you a question. When you got to the 

CFPB, was the glass clear in your office? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Is it frosted now? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Part of it is. 

Mr. ELLISON. Is that your office up there on the screen? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. So when somebody walks by your office, they are 

obscured from seeing what you’re doing? Yes, they are. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. I’m sorry— 

Mr. ELLISON. That’s the whole point, right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, no, it is the point, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. That would be the point. And yet you are the 

champion of transparency, right? You’re the one who’s saying that 

you’re the transparency champion. You said, ‘‘We’re going to spend 

a little bit more time on things like accountability and transparency.’’ You said that, right? 

You said a lot of things to that effect. I think one of the things 

you said as well is to various agencies, various speeches you’ve 

given. Even today you talked about transparency. And yet you have 

obscured yourself physically. And I find that to be ironic, sir. And 

it just occurs to me that as we’re talking about transparency and 

all that, and how we have to be more accountable, and yet you’re 

obscuring yourself. Well, you also got your own VPN, right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. My own what? 

Mr. ELLISON. VPN. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I don’t think so. Did I? 

Mr. ELLISON. OK. Now, I don’t know. Maybe we’ll see. I guess 

the reporter out there will look into it. But my point is that— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I’m on the same email system, I think, but my 

email address is @CFPB, so I think— 

Mr. ELLISON. You know what— 

Mr. MULVANEY. —they’re the same system. 

Mr. ELLISON. —the point is though, is that as you are describing 

how everyone else needs to be transparent, you are literally making it more difficult for yourself to be seen. 

Mr. MULVANEY. All right, Mr.— 

Mr. ELLISON. I think it’s legitimate to raise this issue. 

Mr. MULVANEY. How many times have you seen a witness actually answer yes or no questions in this room? And I did it to Ms. 

Velazquez for 10 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. No, no, no. And let me tell you this. I’ve seen you— 

I’ve seen you really make yourself out to be some champion of 

transparency as you are obscuring yourself simultaneously. I think 

that’s ironic. How much did it cost for you— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Do you believe in transparency? 

Mr. ELLISON. How much did it cost for you to put the frosting 

up there? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

49 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thirteen offices were frosted, for a total of 

$3,500. And I’ve just been informed, by the way, this was the original plan, under Mr. Cordray’s design, for this office. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, yes. And yet you’re the one who did it, not Mr. 

Cordray. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Do you believe in transparency? 

Mr. ELLISON. And he’d been there for quite a while. 

Mr. MULVANEY. How transparent is your door on your office, Mr. 

Ellison? 

Mr. ELLISON. You know what, I’m not a witness today. You are. 

Now, you’re the witness. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I’ve been to your office. I can’t see into it. 

Mr. ELLISON. No, wait a minute. You are— 

Mr. MULVANEY. You believe in transparency, don’t you? I know 

that you do. 

Mr. ELLISON. No, you’re the one—it’s my—I’m reclaiming my 

time. You’re the one who’s offering yourself as some champion of 

transparency. This is your reason for being over there at the office 

that you shouldn’t even hold right now. And the office that you 

hold, the public can’t see it. Even your staff cannot see it. Who 

knows what you’re even doing in that room right there. How many 

days a week are you at the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Generally, we try to shoot for Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays. The way it’s worked out, Congressman, is that I’m 

there just about every day for a period of time, and across the 

street about every day for a period of time. It’s not been nearly as 

cut and dry as I’d hoped that it would be. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. And let me ask you this as well. Are you, 

you may have meetings in your particular office with your staff? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do. I do. I also have meetings in the conference 

room, which is to the left of that photo, which is not frosted. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. So given the nature—given the decoration 

changes that you’ve made, I think it’s pretty clear that you’re not 

applying the same rules to yourself as you are to the agency that 

you hope to represent. I think that’s too bad. And I’ll yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields 

back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Utah, Ms. 

Love. 

Ms. LOVE. Thank you so much. It’s great to see you, Director 

Mulvaney, and I appreciate your candid questions and answers to 

those questions. I really—it’s refreshing to be quite frank. As you 

know, on this committee, we get a lot of information. We know at 

least a week in advance when somebody’s going to be coming in 

and when we’re going to be doing these hearings. And we get a 

book that talks about what’s been happening in your reports. And 

I put the book aside and went to my district, and I spoke to some 

of the small banks in my district. 

I had a roundtable. Went around. Because I knew I was going 

to have this meeting with you. Instead of asking some of the questions that may be in here, I literally gave them the ability to ask 

you these questions. So one of the issues that they wanted me to 

talk to you about is the fact that they are willing and interested 

in making small-dollar loans. And I wanted to know, and they 

wanted to know, what your initiatives are in respect to small-dollar 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

50 

loans and payday lending and what the end result is that you’re 

hoping to achieve. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Congresswoman, I have to get into more detail 

on small dollar across the board. The first thing that comes to mind 

is, we’re revisiting the payday rule, which is often a small dollar 

rule. But I’d have to get you more specifics on what we’re doing 

across the board on small-dollar, because that’s more than just payday. 

Ms. LOVE. Right. So they—like I said, they were interested in 

making sure that they had the ability to do these small dollar 

loans. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Exactly. And I— 

Ms. LOVE. And I think the more options, obviously, the better. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It’s a shame that Ms. Velazquez is not here, because when I was on the Small Business Committee, when I first 

got here, she and I were Chair and Ranking Member of one of the 

subcommittees on small business and actually did a field hearing 

on just that, micro lending to small business. So we know it’s important. We know it’s got bipartisan support. And to the extent we 

can help you folks make that more readily available, we’d look forward to doing that. 

Ms. LOVE. OK, great. The other question that they wanted to me 

ask you is this. How powerful are you? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Too powerful. 

Ms. LOVE. Too powerful. If someone had an issue—if a small 

bank, for instance—say the Bureau was going after a small bank 

for some issue. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Right. 

Ms. LOVE. Who do they go to for protection? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Nobody. 

Ms. LOVE. Who are you accountable to? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Nobody. I could make the decision to bring the 

lawsuit. I could make the decision not to bring the lawsuit. I could 

make the decision to— 

Ms. LOVE. If you go and send a handwritten note to ask the Federal Reserve for $700 million, are they required to give that to you? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, on October 1st, they— 

Ms. LOVE. Do they—can they ask you questions about what 

that’s needed for? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I don’t think so. The statute doesn’t say that 

they can. 

Ms. LOVE. Do you have a statute that explains exactly how you 

are to spend and if you are to spend that $700 million? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Oh, it just says ‘‘in the operation of the Bureau.’’ 

Ms. LOVE. Here’s the problem that we have. I think the American people and Members of Congress have false choices here. The 

problem that we have is, depending on who’s in that seat, one side 

or the other is going to be frustrated, which means that the American public is going to be frustrated, which tells me that there’s a 

problem with how this was set up. Can you imagine if we actually 

had a Bureau that worked well and worked well for people? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Look at it this way, Congresswoman. You don’t 

get the same sense of frustration about the SEC (U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission) or the FDIC or the FSOC. You might 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

51 

have some complaints about it, but it doesn’t rise to the same level 

as this. We are not the same as the other financial regulators. We 

need to have a more down-the-middle approach so that we are 

taken seriously as regulators and we’re not perceived as being the 

brainchild of one particular ideologue. And that’s one of my biggest 

frustrations with this as an institution is that we do not have the 

same credibility as those other regulators do, and I hope that we 

can work to get to that, so that we’re no longer perceived as that, 

which is either you love us or you hate us. We just want to be good 

bureaucrats and implement the law. That’s what I’m hoping to do 

with the Bureau. 

Ms. LOVE. And let me tell you who else wants you to be that way 

too, the people who go to these small banks. The people that have 

lost their ability to be able to get the resources that they need for 

their communities. And I know this because I was the mayor of one 

of those small cities that are in—that these banks are in, and that 

serve that community. And I have to say that these policies make 

this position more political than policy oriented. And I think that 

that’s the problem that we have. Both sides of the aisle will continue to be frustrated and the American public will not be given 

the ability to be protected, actually get protected, if these statutes 

and these policies remain the same. So I’m hoping that we can at 

least do one thing, put this Bureau on appropriations. And I think 

that that will solve quite a few problems. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, Ranking Member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking 

Member as well. I thank the witness for appearing. And to be quite 

candid with you, I have some degree of appreciation for your candor, because it makes it clear to me where you are. So let’s you and 

I be candid with each other. I am a person who has seen the world 

from the bottom up. I know what invidious discrimination is like. 

I’ve had to sit in the back of the bus. I have consumed from the 

colored water fountain. I have had to go to back doors. So I’m very 

much interested in invidious discrimination and the elimination 

thereof. And as a result, I want to talk to you about testing. My 

assumption is that you’re aware of the testing process. And if 

you’re not, I’ll give a brief explanation. Are you aware of the testing 

process? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I may know it by another name. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, testing is the means by which we can send persons into a facility. Three people. Two may be African Americans, 

or one African American, two Anglos. And see if they’re treated 

similarly, see if they’re treated the same. It’s called testing. Banks 

in the main do not favor testing. As a matter of fact, the laws are 

written such that it is very difficult to accomplish testing. 

Testing is the means by which we can acquire the empirical evidence to prove that discrimination exists. So my question to you is, 

do you support testing in banks to determine whether or not there 

is discrimination? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Congressman, for bringing it to my 

attention. I wasn’t familiar with it, but I’ve just been informed that 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

52 

we’ve done it in the past. We continue to do it. And I have no reason to think we would change it. 

Mr. GREEN. You would support testing to make sure— 

Mr. MULVANEY. We do it as part, right now, of our— 

Mr. GREEN. I believe you do it now. I believe you do it now. But 

I’m asking you to just go on record saying you will support testing 

to acquire— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I see no reason to change the policy, Congressman. And by the way—and I don’t want to cut you off, but there 

was— 

Mr. GREEN. I’ll allow you to. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Someone asked a question before about the annual report. I wanted to point out that we specifically mentioned 

our role in preventing and rooting out discrimination, in the semiannual report that we just sent to you. Someone had asked me if 

it was in there, and I didn’t get a chance to respond to that. So 

we do take that seriously, and seriously enough to put in our semiannual report. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, here’s what I will do. Many times when I have 

persons who equivocate I have to resort to this. Am I correct— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Did I just equivocate? 

Mr. GREEN. You did. 

Mr. MULVANEY. OK. 

Mr. GREEN. Am I correct in assuming that your testimony is as 

follows, that you will continue to test banks to determine whether 

or not invidious discrimination exists? 

Mr. MULVANEY. And I’m telling you yes, I have no reason to 

change the— 

Mr. GREEN. That is sufficient for me. No, I appreciate your answer of yes. That means something to me. And I appreciate your 

being candid. Now— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me ask you this, Congressman. 

Mr. GREEN. Sure. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Is it an effective tool? Because I’m not that familiar with it. 

Mr. GREEN. Is it an effective tool? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Absolutely, it is. It’s used in housing. It is the most 

efficacious methodology available to us. There is nothing that I 

know of that’s better. And I would challenge anyone who would 

just dare to engage in a colloquy with me right now to, let’s talk 

about something that’s better than testing. Other than a person 

confessing. And that rarely happens. So yes, it’s very, very much 

effective. 

And by the way, notwithstanding its effectiveness, this committee has fought allowing it to continue and be expanded into certain areas. The committee has. No disrespect to anybody on the 

committee. But that is the case. 

Because I remember trying to get some legislation to move forward that included testing, and there were all kinds of contingents 

about how it would not work and why it would not work. But I’m 

bringing it to your attention because the gentleman that is with 

you—and I appreciate you referring to persons who are with you 

for assistance, I would do the same thing—Mr. Carson unfortunshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

53 

nately would not—the testing is something that makes a difference 

for people who have been denied access to capital. 

And it is access to capital that makes a difference in the lives 

of people. And believe it or not, and I believe you do—discrimination exists in banking. Do you agree? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I believe there are bad actors. I do, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time on the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back, 

Acting Director Mulvaney. I have long been interested in understanding the decisionmaking surrounding the Bureau’s headquarters renovation. Under your predecessor, I didn’t, let’s say, get 

meaningful answers to simple questions on the topic. And unfortunately the committee is still in the process of investigating whether 

its oversight on this topic was indeed obstructed. My understanding is that the Bureau’s current calculation is that it will 

spend all $242.8 million renovating the building to a Class A luxury office space. Now, a building that it doesn’t even own, it rents, 

I believe, Acting Director. 

Mr. MULVANEY. That’s correct. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I understand that some improvements to the 

building may have been needed, but can you explain to me, briefly, 

because I have several other questions, why it was necessary to 

spend a quarter of a billion dollars on luxury offices for the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It’s a real short answer, because I don’t know. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Stunning. Let me unpack this just a little bit. Acting Director, as you know, Members of the committee have long 

sought to understand who made the initial decision to renovate the 

headquarters building. And the committee repeatedly requested, 

and I did also, requested records relating to this issue. But then 

Director Cordray repeatedly, and I quote indicated that he, ‘‘did not 

know the identity of the individual who made the initial renovation 

decision.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? Someone was— 

Mrs. WAGNER. We’ve sought for some time to understand who 

made the initial decisions to renovate. And then it was Director 

Cordray at the time who repeatedly said that he didn’t know the 

identity of the individual who made the initial decision; is that 

right? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do believe that’s—I was in this committee, and 

I think I asked similar questions of Mr. Cordray and got similar 

answers. 

Mrs. WAGNER. So that’s right. Now it’s my understanding that 

we know from the Inspector General that the decision to renovate 

was made after January 21, 2011. And we know the decision was 

publicly announced on February 18, 2011. So it stands to reason 

that the initial decision to renovate was made during that 28-day 

timeframe, is that correct? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, that’s an assumption you can draw from 

IG’s report, yes, ma’am. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

54 

Mrs. WAGNER. Now, in response to a recent letter about the 

building, you undertook a supplemental records search, and I 

thank you for that, and have sent us a supplemental records production, under a detailed cover letter, which I now ask, Mr. Chairman, be placed in the record, with appropriate redactions to protect 

personal information. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Without objection. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Now, this production contains records that I am 

shocked were not previously produced. It contains a January 24, 

2011 Decision Memorandum and Information Memorandum that 

appears to have been placed in Elizabeth Warren’s briefing book for 

a staffing meeting. Now, I remind you that she served as assistant 

to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Bureau at the time. They recommend in this briefing 

book that she approve entering into contracts for design work to 

prepare for renovations to the headquarters building. The production also contains staff communications and calendars that circumstantially indicate that Ms. Warren approved this recommendation. Do I have that right, Acting Director Mulvaney? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think that’s certainly a conclusion you can 

draw from those materials, yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Were the Memorandums to Ms. Warren located in 

some hard to search location? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It was not. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Were these Memorandums ever subsequently circulated within the Bureau? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That I don’t know. All I know is that we found 

them. We thought that they were responsive to the previous request. And we’ve disclosed them. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Where were they? 

Mr. MULVANEY. They were in the director’s file. 

Mrs. WAGNER. The director’s— 

Mr. MULVANEY. The office of the director’s file, I think. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Office of the director’s file. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. You want to ask me if that would have 

been— 

Mrs. WAGNER. So this committee— 

Mr. MULVANEY. —if that would have been the first place I would 

have looked for stuff? Yes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. This committee asked repeatedly. We have oversight and investigation responsibilities. $242 million, a quarter of 

a billion dollars spent on luxury renovations on a building we don’t 

even own, the Bureau rents. We asked repeatedly for 6 solid years, 

and we find out that they’re in the Director’s office file. Mr. Chairman, I have further questions about these records that were not 

previously produced or referenced, and about the issue revealed by 

these records. I trust that the Bureau will cooperate with any future committee oversight on this topic, sir? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Absolutely. 

Mrs. WAGNER. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired, 

and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Delaney. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

55 

Mr. DELANEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mulvaney, it is 

nice to see you back here. 

You have probably gotten a lot of detailed questions about what 

is going on at the CFPB, so I wanted to more focus on how you 

think about it because we are often confronted with a lot of false 

choices here in Congress, as you well know, having served here. We 

either have to completely repeal Dodd-Frank and every aspect of it, 

or we have to defend every single word of it. 

Same thing with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. It either has to be repealed or eliminated, as you have advocated for 

in the past, or every single word of the statute that creates it is 

perfect. 

So have you thought about approaching this in a way where you 

actually come out very strongly supporting the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, saying you believe in its mission and it is an 

important institution, and you hope it endures across the long 

term; however, to over-compensate for some of the comments you 

have made in the past that obviously make people suspicious about 

your intentions with respect to this agency, but at the same time 

you put forth a list of very constructive improvements you would 

like to make? Have you thought about approaching this that way? 

Because maybe I have missed it, but I have not heard you come 

out strongly in support of both the mission and the importance of 

the institution across the long term, and that you will not do anything to undermine its existence or its ability to function, both in 

the short term and long term; however, you do see some reforms 

that need to be made? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. I hope that is what you would take away 

from the recommendations, which is the recommendations are not 

that we repeal Dodd-Frank. y’all want to do that, that is your prerogative. Right? I am a bureaucrat. I am a member of the Executive branch. I am working at the Bureau. The Bureau shall exist. 

I cannot change that. So if it is going to exist, this is what could 

be done to improve it. And that is what I have tried to do. 

As to sending the larger message about whether or not I—how 

I feel about it, I have always been a strong believer, especially in 

what we do for a living, or what I used to do for a living when I 

sat out there, which is look at what folks do more than what they 

say. I have not blown the place up. 

Mr. DELANEY. But sometimes what you say matters because— 

Mr. MULVANEY. It does. 

Mr. DELANEY. —the tone at the top is actually really important 

in any organization. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I absolutely agree. 

Mr. DELANEY. And other than in your prior life here sitting 

among 435, that is one thing. But now you are in a leadership position in the White House. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Right. 

Mr. DELANEY. You are obviously getting an expanded portfolio. 

And what is so—if you were to say here, for example, and I would 

like to hear you say this if you agree with it, that you support the 

mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and you 

would like to see it endure and exist across the long term. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

56 

Mr. MULVANEY. I support consumer financial protection. And let 

me tell you what I have told the people— 

Mr. DELANEY. But that is— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me tell you what I have told the people who 

work there, and you can draw your own conclusions, which is that 

I said, ‘‘Look. This is a brand-new agency. OK? And right now this 

agency is associated with one person. And you cannot be taken seriously as a regulator if you are the brainchild or baby of one particular person on one side of the aisle. And if you want to be taken 

seriously as a regulator, you have to be able to be more than that.’’ 

This is the very first transition that the Bureau has ever gone 

through. OK? From one party to another. And they have to learn 

how to do that if they are going to be taken seriously. Rather 

than— 

Mr. DELANEY. But can you—reclaiming my time. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. Yes. 

Mr. DELANEY. Rather than supporting consumer finance protections generally, which is what I heard you say just then, do you 

support the existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

as an enduring part of our Government looking out for the best interests of consumers, being funded by the Federal Reserve, but 

with some reforms to make it more accountable, more transparent 

and maybe— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I absolutely think there are better ways to protect consumers than we are doing today. I recognize the fact that 

there is and can be a role for the Federal Government in protecting 

consumers. This is especially true when you are dealing with Federal financial institutions. It would seem to fall to the Federal Government to oversee them. 

Mr. DELANEY. So I am interpreting your answer, respectfully, to 

say that you cannot say you support the existence of this Bureau 

across the long term. But you support the concept of consumer financial protection. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think that is what I— 

Mr. DELANEY. Very quickly, one of the concepts I have put forth 

is the notion of a nonprofit bank to serve distressed communities. 

Banks are not allowed to be nonprofit right now. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. I am not— 

Mr. DELANEY. And it seems to me that if you could allow a nonprofit bank so that it could raise philanthropic dollars to support 

its mission, it could actually be a positive force in some of these 

communities. 

While that is not specifically under your purview, do you support 

a concept like that? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Would the not-for-profit be a Government institution or a— 

Mr. DELANEY. No. It would be a nonprofit like anything else. 

Mr. MULVANEY. What you do with your money is your business. 

Mr. DELANEY. So you would support regulatory changes to allow 

nonprofit banks? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I would be happy to take a look at it. But again, 

what I am faced with is— 

Mr. DELANEY. This is an enterprise that could actually be the 

kind of thing we need to help consumers in some of these markets 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

57 

because it would have a double bottom line, self-sustainability but 

also a mission. 

Mr. MULVANEY. If you want to—if you want to lend money to 

people and take a lower-than-market rate of interest, that is your 

business. 

Mr. DELANEY. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. 

Hill. 

Mr. HILL. I thank the Chairman. I appreciate the hearing. It is 

good to have Director Mulvaney before us today, and I appreciate 

his public service. It is a 7-day-a-week job just to be one of your 

jobs, so we appreciate the sacrifice from your family, stepping away 

from the house. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It keeps me off the street. The triplets are teenagers now; they do not care to see me, anyway. 

Mr. HILL. A fair point. I will not go there. 

But I do want to visit about TILA-RESPA (Truth in Lending ActReal Estate Settlement Procedures Act). This is something you 

know I have had a keen interest in since I came to Congress after 

3 decades in the industry. And Mrs. Warren, when she was making 

the rounds before the formation of the agency you are the acting 

director of, she said, ‘‘Well, one of the key things we are going to 

do is make forms simpler for consumers and simpler for banks.’’ 

That was a goal of the agency, at that time unnamed, I guess, the 

Consumer Bureau. 

Mr. MULVANEY. How did we do on that? 

Mr. HILL. Well, the exhibit A for that was a merger of the truthin-lending statement and the real estate settlement statement. We 

are going to make it one form. It is going to be simpler. Consumers 

are going to be benefited by faster closing, lower costs. It is going 

to be easier for community institutions to loan them mortgage 

money. And I would argue, 8 years later, that that is not the case, 

Director Mulvaney, and it has been made worse by the 

rulemakings by your Bureau. 

This merger is called TRID (TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure). 

It cost the agency $1.5 billion in trying to get computer programs 

to work. It still does not work. I still have complaints about it, extending mortgage closing, raising the cost of mortgages. And one 

thing I have heard time and time again, and Director Cordray and 

I have had candid conversations about this, why can’t the agency 

issue legally binding guidance to mortgage originators that they 

can interpret this rule, and title companies, safely and be held safe 

from prosecution or from action of the Bureau’s investigation? That 

passed the House overwhelmingly. 

And I asked Director Cordray, who was generally supportive of 

that, ‘‘Why don’t you do no-action letters, like we have at the IRS 

or at the sector, where a lawyer can write you and say, if we do 

X and Y about a closing related to the TILA-RESPA form, that 

they have certainty, legal certainty.’’ 

Do you support the concept of no-action letters as guidance? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I will say this. We have—I certainly believe that 

is within our authority to do exactly that. Toward that end, we 

have made what is called a request for information on TILAnshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

58 

RESPA, on TRID, to try and get the type of input that you have 

just suggested because I do believe that is within our authority to 

do, and that it can bring clarity to the law and to the regulations 

in a way that would be beneficial to both financial services providers and consumers. 

Mr. HILL. We want to lower these costs. We do want it simpler, 

and it is not. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I used to— 

Mr. HILL. And we want it less costly, and what the Bureau has 

done for all these years is offer webinars that are confusing, hard 

to find, not informative, and unhelpful to market participants. So 

I hope you will consider this as an official comment. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Just by pure coincidence, we are also reviewing 

our webinar process as well. 

Mr. HILL. Good luck with that if you can find it on your website. 

Let me change subjects to data breaches. I noted in some of the 

material in this hearing that the Bureau has 233 confirmed 

breaches of consumers’ personally identifiable information (PII) 

within the Bureau, and that in the consumer response, another 840 

suspected PII breaches by financial institutions using your portal, 

and that you have investigated that. 

Do you support a data security breach notification? If Mr. 

Luetkemeyer’s bill is made law, do you support a breach notification standard? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think it is a good practice. 

Mr. HILL. And what have you done specifically to protect our consumers’ information? 

Mr. MULVANEY. A couple different things. This has gotten a little 

bit of attention, and I think it was—a lot of it was inaccurate. We 

immediately stopped data collection once I took over, once I was assigned to the office, for the purpose of analyzing our data security. 

We have made certain accommodations within the enforcement 

areas to allow data collection to continue. For example, we will use 

other agencies’ systems and so forth. We will collect data onsite but 

not offsite. I am—the rule is this: I am not going to hold somebody 

to a higher standard than we are willing to hold ourselves, and I 

am not satisfied with our data security right now at the Bureau. 

Mr. HILL. Well, I appreciate that. It is an important area. I want 

to be on record supportive of your four ideas for improvement in 

the agency: Putting it on appropriations, and having an IG. And I 

would also encourage you, on behalf of the people you oversee, to 

have an ombudsman so that someone you regulate can have someone to call besides your office and have guidance on whether they 

have done right or wrong. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HENSARLING. At this point the gentleman has expired. 

For what purpose does the Ranking Member seek recognition? 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to Clause (d)(4) of Committee Rule 3, I request that the gentlelady from Ohio be recognized to question the witness for an additional 5 minutes upon the 

conclusion of the time allotted under the 5-minute rule. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

59 

Chairman HENSARLING. Pursuant to Clause (d)(4) of Committee 

Rule 3, the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio for a total 

of 10 minutes. 

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

And to our witness today, Mr. Mulvaney, thank you for being here 

today. 

Today is a meeting that is heavy on my heart. April should be 

an exciting time for me as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 

Fair Jobs Act, led by then-Martin Luther King. And people embraced, and President Johnson signed it because of much of the unrest and discriminatory practices and consumers being mistreated. 

So I echo the comments of my colleagues before me. But you are 

here, so I am going to ask you the questions. 

It has clearly been established that you have two full-time jobs. 

In my world, to have two full-time jobs, one that you found was a 

joke and the other one you wished it did not exist, and to get paid 

for doing a full-time job that it is impossible to do two full-time jobs 

in the world that we live in and for the type of work that is expected, not only by our consumers but by your colleagues on both 

sides, I think that is the reason why we cannot work being two 

full-time jobs, being paid at those salaries. 

But with that said, you have brought some people with you 

today. Are these part of your top staff team— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. BEATTY. —that is here? Do you have any African Americans 

in top positions? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Mrs. BEATTY. That is a problem, and that is a problem for me. 

Do you know what section 342 is of the Dodd-Frank Act? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. I do not know it by heart. 

Mrs. BEATTY. That is even great—you are going to sit here and 

tell me that you came before this committee, and you sat here on 

this committee, and you know that for the 6 years I have been 

here, the question that I have asked of every single person coming 

here—I have asked them about OMWI and section 342. You are 

the only one to say that you had no knowledge of what it is, and 

you were a former Member of Congress. I find that appalling, insulting, and unacceptable. 

Now, tell me what you are going to do about not understanding 

what 342 is? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I know what the OMWI is, ma’am. It is just I 

did not recognize it as section 342. We do have an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. 

Mrs. BEATTY. So if you know what OMWI is, explain to me—you 

just told us that you have 300—or your staff informed you since 

you wanted to bring it to our attention—that there were 370 highpaid people. How many women are in those high-paid positions? 

How many African Americans and Hispanics are in those high-paid 

positions? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have that breakdown for you, ma’am, if you 

want to give me a chance to get it to you. I have the breakdown 

by race. I have the breakdown by gender in terms of who makes 

what at the agency—at the Bureau. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Well, I would definitely like it. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

60 

Mr. MULVANEY. By the way, and to your opening point, you know 

that I only get paid one paycheck. Right? 

Mrs. BEATTY. I do. 

Mr. MULVANEY. You seemed to imply that I was taking two, and 

I am not. I have only—I only get paid my OMB salary. I do not 

get paid an additional salary. 

Mrs. BEATTY. And I fully understand that. I guess the question 

is, I do not know how you get paid for a full-time job when you 

have two full-time jobs. I find it hard to believe that for the two 

types of jobs that you have, that you would be able to do due diligence in full-time on either one of them. 

So you get paid a full-time salary for doing 50 percent, if that, 

on each of the jobs. And I am just saying, consumers would love 

to have a job where they could only work half-time and be paid 

full-time. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Actually, I would suggest to you that I work 

more than 100 percent of the time. But that is fine. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Well, let me just also move on and say— 

Mr. MULVANEY. In theory, I would only have to— 

Mrs. BEATTY. —and say earlier, as my colleagues wanted to—we 

get into this comparison thing. We come here, and whether it is 

Rich Cordray as the former, or whether it is spending time, if it 

is President Obama, and as my colleague’s open—and one of my 

colleagues in their opening remarks started talking about the 

former director, Director Cordray from my home town running the 

clock out, well, I think it is good to run the clock out when you 

have substantive things to say, and you have facts and answers. 

So maybe when you do not run the clock out, it is because you 

do not have a lot to say or you do not have a lot of knowledge to 

say about it. So I guess I would like to ask you, what is the number 

one thing that you are going to do to change to help consumers? 

You have not filed cases. We know what we have heard in the past, 

being able to put billions of dollars and returning to some 12 million consumers. 

So what is it, very quickly, that you are going to be able to do 

that I can go back home and say to my constituents who are confronted with the high loans of payday lenders, that I can go back 

and say to my minority communities that somebody is fighting for 

you? How do I tell them that when you do not have people who 

look like me in high positions, you do not readily know what those 

numbers are for women? 

We know right now that women in general and women of color 

make lesser on the dollar than our white male counterparts. You 

know that we have a Ranking Member who has worked tirelessly 

in her entire career fighting for the underdog and the consumers. 

And you come here absent of that and absent of readily having answers? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. Not at all. In fact, I think I got— 

I think I have tried to answer every one of your questions, and you 

have raised a couple different things. 

The senior career staff does include African Americans and 

women. We will continue to do what the Bureau has done in the 

past, which is to enforce the 18—18 consumer financial protection 

acts that we are charged with by the statute. That is not changing. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

61 

The fact that we might not try to push the envelope the same as 

the previous Administration did— 

Mrs. BEATTY. I am not comparing it to the previous. I am only 

asking you what you are going to do. 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is what we are going to do. I have sat here 

all day— 

Mrs. BEATTY. I asked the same question to Director Cordray. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have sat here all day and said I am going to 

enforce the law. I am going to follow the statute. I am not going 

to shirk those obligations. I am going to try to be a good bureaucrat 

and try to encourage the folks who work at the Bureau to do the 

exact same thing. 

For that reason, we still have 100 investigations of potential violations of those 18 laws ongoing. We have a dozen or so that might 

turn into lawsuits that might get settled. We have 25 that are actively being litigated. That is still ongoing at the Bureau. So you 

asked me what I am going to do, is I am going to enforce the law 

because that is what I get paid to do. 

Mrs. BEATTY. OK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back the 

balance of my time to the Ranking Member. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to—last year, former Director Cordray of the Consumer Bureau ordered Fay Servicing to pay harmed consumers up 

to $1.15 million for its illegal mortgage servicing practices. In addition to other remedial actions, the Bureau found that Fay kept borrowers in the dark about crucial information. They needed to receive foreclosure relief and stay in their homes. 

Mr. Mulvaney, I have constituents who were harmed by Fay 

Servicing’s failure to provide them with the protections against 

foreclosure that they were entitled to by law. Can you give us an 

update on the status of how many affected consumers have received remedial compensation to address this wrongdoing? Can you 

provide copies of both the compliance and redress plans required 

by the consent order and what more is being done to make sure 

Fay has corrected its practices? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I can provide you with that all that information. 

I cannot do it as I sit here, Ms. Waters. I will say that that was 

a matter I think was concluded before I got there, so that is why 

it is not readily available to me. 

Ms. WATERS. OK. I would like to have that information as soon 

as possible. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I would be happy to do that. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me go on further. I am concerned about payday 

lenders. And you have said that payday lenders have no influence 

over you. As you are aware, Janet Matricciani, I believe is her 

name— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do not know how to pronounce it, either. 

Ms. WATERS. —is a former chief executive at World Acceptance 

Corporation. She is one of your contributors. I know you know her. 

She is one of the Nation’s biggest payday lenders. Under Director 

Cordray, the Consumer Bureau started an investigation into World 

Acceptance Corporation for its abusive practices. 

After you showed up at the Consumer Bureau, that investigation 

was dropped. Just 5 days after the information was dropped and 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

62 

2 days before she stepped down as CEO of her payday lending company, she reached out to you at your personal email address about 

her interest in becoming the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

So what is all of this? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Well, actually, I do not think it is entirely accurate, is what it is. 

Ms. WATERS. What is not accurate? Which part? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The part about I dropped the investigation. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you have anything to do with the investigation? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you at all weigh in on it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Did you know about it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. Oh, no, that is not true, because I— 

they had been going on for, I think, several years. 

Ms. WATERS. OK. Let’s go back. So you did know about it. It was 

brought to your attention. Did you say anything? Did you do anything? Did you take any action at all? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. Zero. None. 

Ms. WATERS. No involvement whatsoever? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Has it been dropped? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Who did it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Career staff recommended that it be dropped 

about the time that I took over— 

Ms. WATERS. Recommended to whom? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That actually does not get reported up to the director’s office; they make that determination themselves. 

Ms. WATERS. So they did it without your knowing anything about 

it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir—ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Are you sure you want to answer that way? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, because it is the truth. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, that creates some real suspicions that you 

would have this corporation— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Only on your—only on your part, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, it would with you because if the fact that you 

do not like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that you— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I could look you in the eye, and would look you 

in the eye— 

Ms. WATERS. On my time. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I had nothing to do with that action. 

Ms. WATERS. On my time. I am reclaiming it. It does raise a lot 

of questions because of the fact that you have stated more than 

once that you do not like it. You do not want it to exist. And we 

are going to delve further into what happened with this decision 

that you claim you have no knowledge of that was made by you. 

We will find out more about this. I yield back. 

Mr. MULVANEY. And you will only find out that I told you the 

exact truth. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentlewoman’s time is expired. The 

gentlewoman’s time is expired. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

63 

The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. EMMER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director 

Mulvaney, for being here. It is good to see you. I will get right to 

it since you have been here for a long time already and we hope 

to have this wrapped up soon. 

In 1975, Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 

This important law exposed and helped eliminate discriminatory 

lending practices, particularly against minorities. In short, HMDA, 

as it is commonly referred to, helped more Americans realize their 

dream of owning a home. 

Over the years, the disclosures required by Regulation C have 

expanded away from the original intent and have actually become 

an obstacle, preventing small, medium, and local lenders from helping aspiring homeowners. 

In 2015, your predecessor at the CFPB demanded from lenders 

more than double the amount of data originally required by 

HMDA. The change to Regulation C was supposed to take effect 

last January, but before it did, in December 2017, you provided relief for financial institutions trying to comply with the proposed 

changes, essentially delaying compliance until 2019. 

Now, could you agree with me that this actually helps smaller 

lenders in the marketplace? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It does. We determined, Congressman, from talking to folks that they were having a great deal of difficulty implementing the rules. We provided the additional time. 

Mr. EMMER. And you were opening—you announced you were 

going to reopen the rulemaking process? 

Mr. MULVANEY. On a couple different points, including, as you 

mentioned, the fact that the previous director had almost doubled, 

in fact more than doubled, the data sets beyond what was required 

by the statute; and then also going to take a look at the size and 

the complexity of the financial institutions that are covered by the 

rule. 

Mr. EMMER. Right. Director Mulvaney, do you agree that the 

focus of the disclosures in Regulation C of HMDA should focus on 

the original intent of the law? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do. 

Mr. EMMER. To expose and help eliminate discriminatory lending 

practices? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. EMMER. Do you agree also that it is important for consumers 

that smaller, local community banks, community lenders, credit 

unions, that they are important to ensure consumers have full and 

fair access to home mortgages and other covered loans? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do. 

Mr. EMMER. And are you aware that many small banks in my 

State of Minnesota and other smaller lenders were reconsidering 

their ability to actually even offer home mortgages and other covered loans because of the additional compliance costs created by 

this rule? 

Mr. MULVANEY. And that is what is so frustrating is it is so oftentimes what we do is I do not think we give enough consideration 

to what the intended or unintended consequences are, which is that 

people are not going to have access to the credit and the capital 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

64 

they need, which is extraordinarily important, especially to folks 

who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum because it is 

the way you get up on the economic spectrum. So we have had several examples of that here today, especially where it comes to 

HMDA. 

Mr. EMMER. The rule proposed by your predecessor would have 

cost lenders an additional $326 million in compliance costs. Do you 

know if your predecessor received any qualitative or quantitative 

cost-benefit analysis on this topic? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am sure there is a cost-benefit analysis on file. 

I have no idea as to how efficacious or sufficient it was. 

Mr. EMMER. Now, this additional cost—again, I asked you earlier 

if the relief you provided did not help more proportionately the 

smaller lenders. That is because the additional cost, larger lenders 

can absorb those additional compliance costs. 

It is these small family owned community banks, member-driven 

credit unions, they are the ones on Main Street in my State, Minnesota, and I suspect all across the country, that get hit the hardest with these additional costs. And just rephrasing, I think what 

you just said, so I understand it in my simple Minnesota way, the 

additional costs, you can protect the consumer. But what are you 

protecting them from if they do not have any option to get a loan 

for a new house, a new car? Shouldn’t that be part of the concern? 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is. In fact, that is hard-wired into the statute 

that we are supposed to do that. 

Mr. EMMER. Right. Representative Hill discussed the data issues 

that have come up. You had testified to Senator Warren back in 

January of the 233 confirmed breaches and the 840 suspected 

breaches of the CFPB portal. Doesn’t this cause you a concern, with 

this double the data rule, going to your testimony today that you 

are not comfortable with the data security at the agency? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The more we take in, the more we can lose. And 

that is why I am very much concerned about both the scope of the 

rule and about our cyber-security. 

Mr. EMMER. So with all the additional costs, the potential loss 

in the marketplace of opportunity for consumers, the data problems, why not just get rid of the rule? Why reopen the process? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Well, because that is the law, and you need to 

go back to your folks back home and encourage them to participate 

in that process because we will go through notice and comment. We 

will do it the right way. And I need to hear from those folks. I need 

to hear folks all across the spectrum, from consumer advocates, 

consumers themselves, financial institutions. They need to participate in that process because that is the way the system is supposed 

to work. 

Mr. EMMER. Thank you. 

Mr. TROTT [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. I now 

recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Director Mulvaney, thank you for being here. It is actually productive to have someone here who listens to our questions and tries 

to answer them. And you have been criticized for having two fulltime jobs. I, for one, thank you for your work and your service. And 

someone as bright and with your work ethic, I wish you had two 

other full-time jobs in addition to that. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

65 

But with respect to your office, I have to say that for $250 million, I am not all that impressed with your office. And I am curious: How long is the lease on that building? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Oh, I forget. I have five different leases we track, 

Congressman. I am sorry. I cannot remember off the top of my 

head how long the lease is. The lease is with—is it the OCC or 

OTS? It is 20 years with two 5-year options, and it is with the 

OCC. The Office of Comptroller of the Currency owns my building. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you. Before we dive into the CFPB, I would 

be remiss if I did not take this opportunity just to put a plug in 

for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Fund. From Michigan, 

the Great Lakes are important to the Midwest and to our country. 

The Great Lakes have over 20 percent of the world’s fresh water 

supply, and the funding is critical. And in the grand scheme of 

things, I do not think it is even as much as the CFPB’s budget, 

so— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Point well taken. I will mention that to the OMB 

director next time I see him. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you. I want to clarify one point. You have 

been beat up a little bit today by the Ranking Member and Mr. 

Sherman and Mr. Ellison for your initial comments where you suggested that the statute just requires that you appear and not testify. 

And I think maybe your subtlety has been lost because you were 

not here saying that in asking for a gold star for being willing to 

testify, and get kudos for that. I would like to make this point and 

make sure you agree with this. You are here saying that you want 

to be accountable. You want to be on appropriations. And you do 

not believe the statute, the way it is written today, makes a lot of 

sense in terms of our job as Members of Congress. Is that a fair 

summary of your position? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Look at it this way. Let’s say that the next director comes in and takes the position, you know what? So many folks 

have talked about how independent this agency has been. In fact, 

its very founding was supposed to be independent. It was supposed 

to be explicitly removed from oversight by Congress. We were not 

supposed to be micromanaged by Congress. 

There is a lot of language out there—it is from Elizabeth Warren, 

Senator Warren, amongst other people—who go exactly to that 

point. If you take that and combine that with the actual language 

of the statute, I think you could make a very compelling case that 

I do not have to answer your questions and neither does that person. I think that is wrong. 

Mr. TROTT. Do you think the President should be able to fire you 

without cause? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I do. 

Mr. TROTT. OK. So I really enjoyed your January 23rd article in 

the journal, and I underlined three sections of it. In one, you said, 

‘‘The Bureau’s previous governing philosophy was to push the envelope aggressively under the assumption that we were the good guys 

and the financial service industries were the bad guys.’’ And I 

could not have said it better myself. 

Under the prior tenure of Director Cordray, his attitude was, 

business is bad, particularly banks. And if you are in the banking 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

66 

business and you are profitable, then you must be taking advantage of consumers. And my concern is there are numerous articles 

out there, there was a great 1–1/2 years ago in ‘‘The Atlantic’’ magazine, about the culture of the CFPB and the politically motivated 

culture there and this mind set. And you have said great things 

about the bureaucrats there and how talented and dedicated they 

are this morning, and I appreciate those comments. But can you 

comment on the culture? Are you able to change that culture so 

that this mantra of business is bad is not the prevailing thought 

of the bureaucrats? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think if he were still here, Mr. Delaney and I 

would agree on more than he probably recognizes, which I do agree 

that the personality of an organization often takes on the personality of the person, the man or woman in charge. And to an extent 

that Mr. Cordray had that attitude about business and about banking and about the role of the CFPB, the Bureau, I think that pervaded the operation of the Bureau. 

I have an entirely different attitude toward what financial services are and what they can do to help people. So we are going to 

look at this with a healthy balance of the folks who make loans and 

the folks who take loans and try and do our best to protect consumers without removing choices from consumers. 

Mr. TROTT. In the editorial you also talk about the CID process, 

and you say where do the people charged go to get their time, their 

money, their good names back? If a company closes its doors under 

the weight of a multiyear CID at the CFPB, what about the workers that are laid off as a result? 

In my prior life, I can tell you I know of a thousand people that 

lost their jobs because of the CID process. It really—when the Federal Government comes in, there are not many good things that 

happen, even for good actors. And my question is, have you 

changed the CID process or have you looked at it such that if it 

is a bad actor—if it is a bad actor, who cares what happens to him? 

If it is a good actor and there is no finding and the file is closed, 

the company shouldn’t be put out of business. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I can change the way the place 

is run while I am there. Only you folks can change the underlying 

DNA of the Bureau. That means changing the statute. 

Mr. TROTT. Great. Well, I appreciate your comments. I also 

thought giving guidance is important because, as it existed in the 

prior Administration, the CFPB acted more like the Mafia than a 

consumer protection agency. 

My time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Mulvaney, for being here today. Listening earlier, when you 

were talking about the statute and how—the interpretation, I think 

you are exactly right. The way the statute was written doesn’t compel you to answer any questions here, but you are here answering 

the questions. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Right. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And I think that is a testimony to you wanting 

to do good government—governance. And the testimony that you 

want to operate the organization in the way it should be operated 

in protecting consumers. And I think that is what we are really 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

67 

here to get at, is to have this flow of information. And I apologize 

that some have turned this into just trying to be a gotcha moment, 

when I think Americans are really tired of that. 

There is something that you said a little while ago that resonated with me, and it—you said, the more we take in, the more we 

have to lose, which goes back to something, a principle that, when 

I worked in the military and with 20 years in the IT industry was, 

you don’t have to protect what you don’t have. In other words, if 

you don’t need data, don’t have the data, don’t collect the data. 

And I appreciate that you had mentioned to Mr. Hill earlier that 

you stopped the Bureau’s collection of consumer information, as 

you came in. Again, data collecting that you don’t have to have, you 

don’t necessarily need to have, but becomes a risk to be compromised in the future. 

And can you elaborate a little more on the specific items that you 

are looking into to improve CFPB’s cybersecurity? Because that is 

a big concern to a lot of Americans today, especially with agencies 

that do hold a lot of data. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Well, what we did was prioritize and triage, Congressman Loudermilk. And what we did is we treated the data 

within our enforcement area one way, because we have to have it 

in order to enforce the law. You have to have some information. So 

we have tried there to make accommodations. We have worked 

with some of our sister agencies whose systems are a little bit more 

robust than ours are to hold our data for us. We have limited some 

of the stuff that we take in. We have done some more onsite, where 

we look at the data but don’t collect it. To your point, we might 

need it but we don’t need to keep it. So we have tried to make accommodations there. 

We have not had as much—it has not been as quick over in the 

supervision area. Another thing that we do there, which is different 

from enforcement. They are related but not the same. Because we 

have those preexisting relationships with, say, the Department of 

Justice when it came to enforcement, did not have those preexisting relationships when it came to supervision. So it has been 

a little slower there. 

I will also tell you that we have undertaken to do some let’s say 

third party—we have hired folks to see if they can hack into our 

system. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Good. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I don’t want to go into any more detail than 

that. I have talked to you about it privately. But we have done, I 

think, that which you would have done under the same circumstances to try and make sure that our systems are protecting 

the data so that we don’t have the same type of problems that we 

sometimes accuse people of having in the marketplace. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I highly commend you because of all the agencies that I have dealt with on this issue, you are the first one who 

has laid out a plan that actually hits what we should be doing, and 

I commend you for that. 

I would like to follow up on something that Chairman Hensarling 

asked earlier about the CFPB’s Qualified Mortgage rule, but you 

didn’t have time to fully answer that. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

68 

During your required 5-year review of the rule, will you be looking at both the costs and the benefits for consumers in this rule? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is what the statute says to do, so we will 

be doing it. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you. And while we are talking 

about the statute, I have looked at the statute and I don’t see 

CFPB in the statute anywhere, Consumer Financial Protection. 

What is the name of the organization and why do we call it CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I don’t know why we call it the CFPB, but that 

is not the name of the organization. The organization is the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection. That is the name of the statute, 

Title X. That is the subheading under the Bureau. That is the defined term under the Bureau. The Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau does not exist. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So I assume if there are any legal filings, it is 

all done under the name of the statute, not the CFPB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. The stuff that we send to the Federal Registry— 

Federal Register is done in the name of the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection. I was surprised to find out that our lawsuits 

are actually brought in the name of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which surprised me, and it is a practice we are 

going to change. But the CFPB technically does not exist. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Wow. One closing thought. Dealing with transparency, that has been brought up and a lot of accusations have 

been made about your transparency here. What I have seen is a 

lot of transparency from this organization. In the previous leadership of this organization, there was a high lack of transparency 

when it came to this committee asking for information that we 

needed. And I believe and I hope that that will be different under 

your directorship, that we will get information that we request and 

ask for. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have said this to the Chairman, I will say it 

to the Ranking Member. Ask us for stuff, because I think you 

might be surprised once you know more about what we are, you 

might be more inclined to work together to help reform the place. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you for your work. 

Chairman HENSARLING. [presiding.] The time of the gentleman 

has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mulvaney, I want to thank you for doing two jobs very 

well, and I appreciate you for taking on that extra task. And, 

frankly, I appreciate your family for supporting you in doing that. 

So thank you. 

Would you say the CFPB or the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection—so we are talking about the same place—is a nonpartisan agency? 

Mr. MULVANEY. In what sense? 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Is it affiliated with a particular political ideology 

or political party? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I understand. I think it is fair to say that, as of 

this point in time, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

69 

probably perceived as being closely aligned with Senator Elizabeth 

Warren. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. And so in some ways, is it acting in a way that 

is different than an Executive branch agency? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think since I have gotten there, things have 

changed. I think certainly I have run the place differently than Mr. 

Cordray did, if that answers your question. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, I think it gets at it. But culture is really 

important. And, frankly, the Executive branch, as you have highlighted, its job is to execute the law, the law as passed not necessarily the law as its director wishes existed. And I am particularly concerned about the culture that was created there by the 

former director. It seems to perhaps be hyper-partisan, to be in 

some ways well outside the scope of the statute and beyond the 

limited authority that it has, in the sense of a charter, but as you 

have highlighted, the authority is massive. And so you can really 

flesh out what is at the heart of the ideology of the person leading 

the organization. 

And so just to highlight that, do you feel that a nonpartisan 

agency, why would they need to spend money on a PR firm? 

Mr. MULVANEY. That is a great question. Not really sure. If you 

are speaking of the GMBB contract? 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well that would be in the abstract. But, yes, particularly they chose GMBB which isn’t just a PR firm, they are a 

particular brand of PR firm. What do you know about that brand? 

Mr. MULVANEY. What I know is that we have canceled that contract, we are in the process of canceling that contract. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you. And I appreciate you for that. Do you 

feel—I don’t want to draw a conclusion based on the fact that you 

have canceled it. Do you feel that the American people were getting 

a good value for the $43 million that CFPB was spending with 

GMBB? 

Mr. MULVANEY. If I thought I were getting good value for my $43 

million, I would not have sought to cancel the contract. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Do you feel like they were effective at conveying 

the mission of the Bureau? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Let me put it to you this way. I don’t think that 

our statutory mission was being served. I am not sure why we have 

to—the SEC does not advertise that it exists. The FDIC does not 

advertise that it exists. 

I guess you could make the argument that in the very early days, 

when you are going from nothing to something, maybe you could 

make the argument that you should let people know you do exist. 

But that is an argument for a declining expenditure on advertising 

over the course of time, not an increasing line item on advertising. 

So, like I said, we are in the process of canceling the contract and 

I think it was the right decision. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you for your stewardship on that. And I 

just find it particularly odd that an agency, even with the size of 

budget—and thank you for reigning that in as well—that CFPB 

has had, 3 percent, the highest of any agency in this decade in 

spending on PR. Not that no agency spends money on PR, but way 

out of bounds. And with a hyper-partisan, Hillary Clinton-affiliated 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

70 

PR firm, a firm that Barack Obama spent millions and millions of 

dollars with when he was a Presidential candidate. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I want to make one thing perfectly clear, Mr. Davidson, just so—and this is particularly aimed at my colleagues 

across the aisle. That $242 million that I spent on the building, I 

could take that and hire Breitbart. I could take that and hire the 

Drudge Report to do marketing that I like for the Bureau. I am not 

going to do it, because it is the wrong thing to do. But I have that 

kind of flexibility. I could hire the Heritage Foundation to do education. I could hire AEI to do the same type of thing. It is a tremendous amount of discretion. I am not going to abuse that. But 

the statute certainly permits it. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, and so I think to your point there, the wideopen nature of the statute really does more to highlight the views 

and ideologies of the person making the decisions. In this case, Director Cordray had a very different value system than the one you 

have carried there, and I thank you for your stewardship and I 

have a couple other questions with a little bit of time remaining, 

but my time has indeed expired. So thank you, Director Mulvaney, 

and I yield. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Kustoff. 

Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Mulvaney, for coming to testify this afternoon. We appreciate 

it very much. 

First of all, let me say that I appreciate the tone and candor that 

you have expressed today on both sides to all questions across both 

aisles. I think that we both share the common belief that the heart 

of real consumer protection means returning the power of the Bureau to the hands of the consumer rather than one single bureaucrat. Certainly, that is something you have talked about today. And 

again, I do appreciate your tone. 

By increasing the transparency of the CFPB, I don’t think there 

is any doubt that the consumer benefits by having increased economic freedom. Part of this was discussed in the Bureau’s strategic 

plan, as one of your primary objectives to ‘‘identify and address outdated, unnecessary and unduly burdensome regulations in order to 

reduce the unwarranted regulatory burdens.’’ 

Director Mulvaney, could you elaborate on some of the changes 

that you will impose or you have imposed to ensure that all consumers have access to markets for financial products and services? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Sure. And keep in mind, the reason we are doing 

that is that is a specific mandate of the statute. I was always surprised, I don’t think that appeared in the strategic plans in the 

past, even though it is in the statute. I may be wrong, it may have 

been in there. But I think for some reason I seem to remember that 

in previous strategic plans, the previous management did not isolate that, did not draw attention to the fact that this is part of our 

job. Part of the statutory mandate is to look at overly burdensome 

and unduly burdensome regulations. 

So what we are doing is exactly that. We go through—one of the 

primary tools for that, Mr. Kustoff, is the 5-year lookback that we 

do. And you have heard me mention that several times here today, 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

71 

that stuff that has been on the books for 5 years, we will go back 

and take a look at and see if it is working out the way we thought 

it would, did it have unintended consequences, did it have good 

consequences, does it need to be revisited, those types of things. 

And that is—that is one of the primary things we have been doing. 

You have also heard us talk about just going ahead and announcing that we are going to be revisiting certain rules, revisiting the 

payday rule, revisiting the HMDA rule under the argument that I 

want to see the information myself. I want to go through the Administrative Procedures Act. I want to collect the data, I want to 

get the notice and comments, and I want to see what the cost/benefit analyses look like to see if I would have made the same decision that my predecessor did. 

So I think in a variety of different places, we are doing everything we can to try and bring some common sense back to the way 

the Bureau is run and how it interacts with both consumers and 

the providers of capital. 

Mr. KUSTOFF. And by doing that, does that adequately strike a 

balance, if you will, between the industry concerns and consumer 

needs? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I hope so. That is what we are shooting for is 

a balance. I have met with as many consumer groups as I have met 

with industry groups. It is about balance and it is about listening 

to all the sides of the equation before making a determination, not 

going into an analysis with a predetermined outcome and just 

checking the box, well, I know I’m going to do this but I know the 

law says I have to talk to that bank so I go talk to that bank. I 

don’t care what they say but I have to say that I talked to them. 

That’s not the right way to do what we do. And to the extent it 

happened in the past, it’s not going to happen in the future. 

Mr. KUSTOFF. You generally this morning and this afternoon 

talked about what you walked into, the employees that you have 

encountered at the CFPB. How would you characterize their tone 

and ethic, if you will? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I tell you, it has been one of the most pleasant 

and positive surprises. The overwhelming majority, overwhelming 

majority of the folks I think who work there just want to be good 

bureaucrats. They want to be good Government workers. And they 

are working just as hard under my new direction as they were 

under Mr. Cordray’s. And that has been a pleasant surprise. The 

quality of the work, especially the legal work that I have seen, is 

as good as I have seen from any place in my adult career. That has 

been very, very encouraging, that folks have been able to switch 

gears. And I think that speaks well of our ability to be a credible 

regulatory body going forward. 

That said, is there a very small minority of people who would 

like to see me fail because they are ideologues and they are activists? Yes, they are there. And we will just have to deal with it. 

That is life in Washington, D.C. in the 21st century. 

Mr. KUSTOFF. One concern that people have had under the prior 

director was overreach by the CFPB. Do you feel like now, now 

that you are the director or the acting director, that there is not 

the concern that people like me would have in terms of overreach 

by the CFPB? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

72 

Mr. MULVANEY. If it is in the statute, we are going to do it. Beyond that, we are going to be very reserved in the execution of our 

authority. 

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

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Gottheimer. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Mulvaney. Per the AP, a review of the CFPB 

database obtained by the AP through a Freedom of Information request shows that the Bureau issued an average of two to four enforcement actions a month under former Director Cordray, the last 

appointee. But the database shows zero enforcement actions have 

been taken since November 21, 2017, 3 days before Mr. Cordray resigned. Except for enforcement actions strategically announced yesterday, there has been nothing coming out of the CFPB. 

Mr. Mulvaney, reports indicate that you have scaled back the investigations— 

Mr. MULVANEY. I hate to interrupt you, Congressman. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULVANEY. We did not announce any enforcement actions 

yesterday. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. OK, so I will just get to my question then. 

Mr. Mulvaney, the reports indicate that you have scaled back the 

investigation of Equifax. And while Equifax’s regulatory filings 

note the investigation still exists, the AP recently reported from 

three sources that the agency has not ordered subpoenas against 

Equifax or sought sworn testimony. These are preliminary and 

common steps in any investigation, as you know, and it seems you 

have also abandoned plans to test data protections at Equifax. 

More than 143 million people were affected by this, a service that 

they didn’t even sign up for. Their handling of the response was 

flawed, from providing immediate information to victims to providing services to address their failures. In my opinion, the agency 

has clear jurisdiction. Why is the agency failing to aggressively address this issue which affected so many Americans? 

Mr. MULVANEY. A couple of different things, and I have mentioned this. I know that you haven’t been here for the rest of the 

hearing. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Sorry. Sorry, yes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I have mentioned this a couple different times, 

but I will go back and do it again. 

Most of what you just said is wrong. It is not your fault, because 

it was reported, but it is— 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. I am eager to get the facts, so thank you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is inaccurately reported. 

We do not comment, generally, on ongoing investigations. So I 

will say this about Equifax. 

At the end of their last 10-Q filing, they disclosed that they were 

being investigated by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. And the story broke, I think that Reuters broke the story that 

said we had done what you just described. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. AP. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

73 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am not in a position to correct that, because 

I am not allowed to comment, or our practice is not to comment on 

the existence or nonexistence of ongoing investigations. Clearly, 

folks knew it was ongoing because Equifax chose to disclose it. I 

was not in a position to clarify anything. And I think the folks who 

leaked the inaccurate information knew that. So all I said was, I 

encourage folks to go look at the 10-Q—the 10-K filing that will 

come, I think, at the end of the first quarter. And, sure enough, 

when Equifax filed their 10-K, they once again disclosed the fact 

that they were being investigated by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

So most of what you said is wrong. It is not your fault, because 

it is the media. But I will— 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. I assume you are disturbed, like the rest of us, 

about obviously what’s been found and the millions of people whose 

lives were affected. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Again, I was one of those folks. But I do not comment on ongoing investigations. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Thank you. If we could switch gears quickly, 

prior to taking over the CFPB, the agency was proactively protecting first responders. Director Cordray at the time was making 

sure first responders awaiting payments from the 9/11 Zadroga 

Fund weren’t being scammed. Of course, these are the police and 

firefighters that responded for us after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 

and that were being scammed, and they are the people that were 

moving rubble and helping those injured, and helping our country 

recover after a terrorist attack. 

But now there is at least one company, and among others, trying 

to take advantage of these heroes and scam their payments. One 

company allegedly misled police officers, firefighters, and other 

first responders about the terms of advanced payments. In some 

cases, the transactions were equivalent to rates of more than 250 

percent. The company’s convoluted contracts confused consumers 

and charged unlawfully high interest rates for advances. USA 

TODAY wrote about one former officer who was disabled by respiratory illness after responding to Ground Zero. The officer received $355,000 in advances as he waited for his settlement, thinking it would be a mere 19 percent interest. Instead, the company 

charged roughly—sought roughly $860,000 in total repayments. 

Do you think, A, do you know if the Bureau is still going after 

companies like this? And do you think the Bureau is appropriate 

to go after companies like this? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am not exactly sure if the facts and circumstances you mentioned relate to the one lawsuit that I know 

is public, so I am going to assume that it is. If it is not, I apologize, 

we will have to straighten it out— 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Yes, speak just broadly about this. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is similar enough. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Yes. 

Mr. MULVANEY. It is publicly disclosed we filed a lawsuit against 

a company called RD Legal. That is an ongoing piece of litigation. 

We did not dismiss that. We are actively pursuing the causes of action against RD Legal. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

74 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. And so taking out that specific case because I 

know you can’t comment on specific cases, in general, companies 

that are taking actions against victims of first responders of 9/11 

and who were victims of companies like these, what is the opinion, 

what is your opinion on it? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Folks that we catch breaking the law will be 

pursued by the Bureau. 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. OK. Thank you very much and thank you for 

your time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

MacArthur. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Thank you, Chairman. And Director Mulvaney, 

thank you for your presence here today and your candid answers. 

I wasn’t here when Dodd-Frank was passed, I wasn’t here when 

CFPB was started. And maybe I don’t feel any reflexive need to either defend or attack this institution. I just want to see the agency 

do its best for consumers. 

I know there are bad actors out there. I spent a life in business 

and I encountered some of them. And so I am a strong advocate 

for consumer protection. 

I am concerned though about second-order effects of some things 

that I have seen CFPB do. And I am concerned that it might hurt 

the very consumers that it is purportedly trying to protect. 

Enforcement penalties have an effect on companies that, in my 

view, should be commensurate with what they have done. If they 

have done some egregious act, then the penalties should be commensurate with that act. 

The reality though is, for public companies, their value is some 

multiple of their earnings. And a million-dollar reduction in earnings can be a $15 million effect. The mere suggestion that a company has acted badly can destroy its reputation in the public markets and it can drive it into a tailspin. And that worries me, because these companies are owned by Main Street investors, 401(k) 

funds, pension funds. 

Are you familiar with the PH&H case? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am, yes, sir. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I spent a good deal of my time 1 year or 2 

years ago questioning your predecessor about that case. PH&H is 

domiciled in my district. They employ 3,500 people in my district. 

And tell me if I am getting any of these facts wrong. They were 

tried inside the CFPB. The result was a $6.4 million judgment, 

which ignored the statute of limitations. But that aside, that was 

the judgment. 

Your predecessor, then-Director Cordray unilaterally increased 

that to $109 million. And the company subsequently lost over a billion, with a B, over a billion dollars in market valuation. 

Is that case resolved? Was it finally adjudicated? Or is that still 

pending? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I am going to be careful here. There was a decision handed down by an appellate court. I do not believe the time 

for filing appeals has run out yet. So it is technically still ongoing; 

either side can still appeal. But there was a decision handed down 

by the court of appeals. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

75 

Mr. MACARTHUR. But it is fair to say, and I am not trying to litigate that case here—it is complicated and I think my own view is 

that CFPB overreached and hammered a company that was relying 

on guidance from two different agencies. But that aside, the point 

I am trying to make is a billion dollars of value was wiped out, and 

that affected Main Street investors, pension fund holders, 401(k) 

investors, the employees of that company. And it has been bouncing around the courts now because there was overreach. And the 

director’s unilateral judgment of $109 million was challenged and 

that challenge has been sustained. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Go back to the Chairman’s opening comments 

about what the director can and cannot do. And I hope the Ranking 

Member pays attention to this. Because what you just described is 

an accurate factual representation of what happened. 

I am the court of appeals from the administrative law judge. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. And that is my point. So my question to you, 

Director, is do you look—does any part of CFPB look at the effect 

on companies’ valuations, on second-order effects from the penalties 

that you impose? Is there that kind of analysis to see whether the 

effect is really, really commensurate with the offense? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Honestly, I don’t know, because I haven’t been 

called upon to do that yet. But to the point you’re making, which 

is should we consider what is going to happen? Absolutely. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I would urge you to do that. 

In my remaining seconds, I just want to thank you for doing two 

jobs. There has been much fuss made today about the fact that you 

are filling this role temporarily until June 22. There is not a company in the world, when they lose the senior executive, which happened when Richard Cordray stepped down to run for Governor. 

That is his prerogative. I am not faulting him, but he created the 

vacancy. It takes time to fill vacancies. And the President asked 

you to do this temporarily. It is a lot of work and I, for one, appreciate your efforts in getting it right. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Does the Ranking Member seek recognition? 

Ms. WATERS. Unanimous consent to enter into the record, sir, 

two communications. One from Consumers Union in support of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and U.S. PIRG, also in 

support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Without objection. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Budd. 

Mr. BUDD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mulvaney, 

as well. I appreciate all you do for service in this Nation and your 

vision for the CFPB is one that I support, transparency and objectivity. So thank you. Thanks also for doing two jobs for the price 

of one. We could sure use a lot more of that in this city. 

So last year a Wall Street Journal investigation found that a 

large number of public comments that were submitted to Federal 

agencies, including the FCC and the agency that you head up, 

CFPB, that those are actually fraudulent submissions using stolen 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

76 

identities of real people to mimic actual grassroots support. All this 

according to the Wall Street Journal. 

Does the CFPB have text analytic measures in place to separate 

and identify legitimate public comments from bot and other computer-generated IDs? And if not, why? 

Mr. MULVANEY. I think—I am going to do my best to answer that 

question and then I am going to get back to you with more details. 

I think we do have systems in place that would filter out what are 

obviously form responses. If a bunch of them are the exact same, 

we know about that. I don’t know what we do to get to the more 

sophisticated stuff, to actually track down if it is a real person or 

not. But I do know that we have some protections in place to make 

sure that we know if someone wrote in their own answer or if 

someone was sending in a response from somebody else. 

Mr. BUDD. OK. So I want to switch over to data security and discuss some of the efforts you have taken to improve the Bureau’s 

data security program. Can you tell me how many confirmed 

breaches of consumer personally identifiable information have occurred within the Bureau’s consumer response system and in the 

company portal? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, it is just north of 200. I don’t have the exact 

number. We think there are another 800 that we suspect might 

have been lost, but we haven’t been able to nail that down. 

Mr. BUDD. How many complaint narratives have been published 

in the consumer complaint portal with unredacted consumer or 

third-party names? 

Mr. MULVANEY. A couple hundred. Your point is this, we are supposed to redact that information and those fall through the cracks 

and the unredacted stuff ends up on the publicly available portal, 

which is wrong. 

Mr. BUDD. I understand. 

What specifically has the Bureau done under your leadership to 

improve data security? I think that was one of your stated goals 

when you stepped up to the role. 

Mr. MULVANEY. We are taking a long look at it, doing a bunch 

of different things, including asking some of our sister agencies to 

help us manage data while we fix our systems. And the primary 

thing we are doing right now is actually working with the Department of Defense to test our own vulnerabilities. 

Mr. BUDD. To shift gears a bit, and this may have come up earlier in the hearing. But you have discussed previously the number 

of well-paid economists that work there, 40 or 50 or so, and it is 

hard to do a reduction in force the way it is constructed, the way 

the statutes are for your agency. Is there a way to take well-paid 

key employees and perhaps do an interagency loan of these employees? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, it is called detailing, and we have actually 

reached out to some folks to see if they are interested in doing that. 

If there are folks that we have that we could be getting a better 

return on our investment in them in another agency, we are exploring that possibility. 

Mr. BUDD. Thank you again for your time. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

77 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 

now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Tenney. 

Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Mulvaney, for your service and for withstanding all this exciting 

testimony today while we have another— 

Mr. MULVANEY. It’s just I don’t remember the room being this 

cold. Is it colder down here than it is up there? 

Ms. TENNEY. It is cold in here. That’s why I have my coat. 

But I do want to say, I enjoyed reading some of your preparatory 

materials, including referencing Madison in the Federalist Papers. 

And I always—when I think about who is in charge, I always think 

about Madison’s Federalist 10, which says enlightened Statesmen 

will not always be at the helm. And I think we are prepared for 

that. 

And that is one of the reasons I want to ask you, I know you 

have been asked this. But again, going back to the importance of 

transparency and the importance of accountability in this body. 

And if you could just say one more time, and I know that you have 

had this, and I apologize if you have said it in another way. 

How can we make CFPB more accountable? I know we are doing 

that under your leadership. But to understand that if we are going 

to have unenlightened Statesmen someday at the helm again, how 

do we prevent that from happening using the checks and balances 

in our constitutional system? And I knew you alluded to the appropriations process and bringing us back to the Congress for that. 

Can you highlight just maybe a couple of things that you would do 

as Chairman to make sure that in the event that you aren’t the 

Chairman and we have someone that is not as enlightened as you 

are, how we protect the people? 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you for the opportunity. We’ll skip over 

the appropriations, because we talked about that. And if there is 

one thing you could do to bring some transparency and accountability to the Bureau, it would be that. But beyond that, I made 

a couple suggestions and I will talk about some other ones. 

I would love to have an independent IG. I have gotten tremendous service from the inspector general. I do not mean to denigrate 

their work at all. I think we have worked with them extraordinarily well. But they do share us with the Federal Reserve 

Board. It’s actually a cost savings to us to have our own IG. 

By the way, I am going to go down this list a little bit, and I 

think y’all have voted on just about all of these and I think most 

of them have passed on a bipartisan basis. I would love to see myself, this position, answerable to the President and removable at 

will, as opposed to just for cause. I think that makes it a lot more 

accountable. 

I think what we call applying the REINS Act to our rules would 

help bring some consistency across various agencies. Keep in mind, 

one of the things that I think is important is to make sure that 

when we put out a rule or a reg, we are not doing the exact opposite of what one of the other regulators is doing, so that we don’t 

say you have to do A and the FDIC saying you have to do the exact 

opposite of A. And right now, I don’t think there’s a very robust 

method to do that. If we had more oversight from you folks in 

terms of the OIRA rules, if we were brought under OI, for example, 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

78 

in terms of coordinating across various agencies, that would be 

helpful. 

So there are a lot of things that we could do. We talked about 

the five-person commission to smooth things out so you don’t get 

these wild swings between me and Mr. Cordray and whoever comes 

next. 

So there are a bunch of things that you can do, a bunch of things 

you have already done. And I do encourage you to continue to push 

those reforms as you look at your version of the banking bill, the 

Crapo bill, that the Senate has passed. Because I think now is the 

time to do it. If you don’t do it now, my guess is it could be a long 

time. 

And I didn’t have a chance to say this earlier, so I want to say 

this. I don’t think that we are in a rush. I don’t think that we have 

to have a bill by the end of this week from the Senate. I think we 

need to go ahead and do it right, because I don’t think you get a 

chance to do it again for a long time. 

Ms. TENNEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony. 

And I think that down the road, I do think we have to do it right 

this time. I think we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity, 

of course, hopefully to get the Senate to act on many of the bills 

that we have that you have cited and to make sure these things 

go through. But I think we are on the road. 

But I do appreciate your leadership and your willingness to come 

here and be very honest and frank with our committee today. It 

was really a pleasure to listen to you. It is very unusual to see 

someone in Government that is just so honest and transparent and 

we appreciate it. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thanks very much. 

Ms. TENNEY. So thank you so much for your service. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I appreciate it. 

Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair wishes to inform all Members that votes are currently 

taking place on the floor. There being no other Members in the 

queue, I would like to thank the witness for his testimony today. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(79) 

A P P E N D I X 

April 11, 2018 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

80 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Testimony of Mick Mulvaney 

Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

Before the House Committee on Financial Services 

Aprilll, 2018 

Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to 

present the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) semi-annual report to Congress 

for the period beginning April I, 2017 to September 30, 20 17 as well as to provide you an update 

on the activities of the Bureau during my tenure. 

Shortly after President Trump appointed me as Acting Director of the Bureau, I announced that 

the Bureau would continue to execute the law but would no longer go beyond its statutory 

mandate. In enacting section 1016(c) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Congress enumerated nine elements for inclusion in the 

Bureau's semi-annual reports to Congress: 

I. A discussion of the significant problems faced by consumers in shopping for or 

obtaining consumer financial products or services; 

2. A justification of the buclget request of the previous year; 

3. A list of the significant rules and orders adopted by the Bureau, as well as other 

significant initiatives conducted by the Bureau, during the preceding year and the plan of 

the Bureau for rules, orders, or other initiatives to be undertaken during the upcoming 

period; 

4. An analysis of complaints about consumer financial products or services that the Bureau 

has received and collected in its central database on complaints during the preceding 

year; 

5. A list, with a brief statement of the issues, of the public supervisory and enforcement 

actions to which the Bureau wa<; a party during the preceding year; 

6. The actions taken regarding rules, orders, and supervisory actions with respect to 

covered persons which are not credit unions or depository institutions; 

7. An assessment of significant actions by State attorneys general or State regulators 

relating to Federal consumer financial law; 

8. An analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to fulfill the fair lending mission of the Bureau; 

and 

9. An analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to increase workforce and contracting diversity 

consistent with the procedures established by the Office of Minority and Women 

Inclusion. 

This semi-annual report meets this mandate. 

1 
81 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Moreover, section I 0 12( c)( 4) of the Dodd-Frank Act contemplates that the Director will submit 

independent legislative recommendations to Congress. It is appropriate to include legislative 

recommendations in this semi·annual report, because doing so will afford Members of Congress 

a timely opportunity to discuss my recommendations in the hearing. 

Undoubtedly, many Members of Congress disagree with my actions as the Acting Director of the 

Bureau, just as many Members disagreed with the actions of my predecessor. Such continued 

frustration with the Bureau's lack of accountability to any representative branch of government 

should be a warning sign that a lapse in democratic structure and republican principles has 

occurred. This cycle will repeat ad infinitum unless Congress acts to make the Bureau 

accountable to the American people. 

Accordingly, I request that Congress make four legislative changes to the law in order to 

establish meaningful accountability for the Bureau : 

I. Fund the Bureau through Congressional appropriations; 

2. Require affirmative legislative approval of major Bureau rules; 

3. Ensure that the Director answers to the President in the exercise of executive authority; 

and 

4. Create an independent Inspector General for the Bureau. 

You also requested that I discuss the activities of the Bureau during my tenure, and I am 

prepared to explain the Bureau's new strategic priorities and new approach. 

Semi-annual report requirements 

The first section of the Bureau's semi-annual report to Congress is a discussion of the significant 

problems faced by consumers in shopping for or obtaining consumer financial products or 

services. In this section of the report, the Bureau discusses "credit invisibles," consumers who 

Jack a credit record at one of the nationwide credit reportin~ companies. In June 2017, the 

Bureau released the Data Point: Becoming Credit Invisible,- which explores the means by which 

consumers transitioned out of credit invisibility. The semi-annual report also discusses the 

Bureau's mandate to provide consumers with financial education and the Bureau's 2017 

financial literacy annual report.3 

'Other dum the Bureau's Acting Director, no other officer or agency of the United States approved these legislative 

recommendations prior to submission to Congress. The views contained herein arc those of the Acting Director and 

do not ne-cessarily rellect the views of the Board o( Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the President of the 

United States. 

1 hups://www.consumcrfinancc.gov/documcnts/4822/BccomingCrcditVisible_Data_Point_Final.pclf. 

J https://www.consumerfinance.gov/documents/5810/cfpb.fiooncial-litemcy·annual-rcporl·2017.pclf. 
82 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


The second section of the semi-annual report is a justification of the Bureau's budget request of 

the previous year. The Bureau's FY 2017 Strategic Plan, Budget, and Performance Plan and 

Report includes estimates of the resources needed for the Bureau to carry out its mission. The 

justification of the FY 2017 budget request is on the Bureau's website at https://www.consumer 

finance.gov/about-us/budget-strategy/budget-and-performance/. 

The third section of the semi-annual report lists the significant rules and orders adopted by the 

Bureau, as well as other significant initiatives conducted by the Bureau, during the preceding 

year and the plan of the Bureau for rules, orders, or other initiatives to be undertaken during the 

upcoming period. The Bureau's significant final rules during the term of this report are the final 

rule on arbitration agreements (which will not go into effect because Congress adopted a joint 

resolution of disapproval, which the President signed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act) 

and the final rule on Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans. The 

Bureau's significant initiatives include requests for information on assessments of significant 

rules under section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which include 2013 Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act Servicing Rule Assessment; Remittance Rule Assessment; and Ability-toRepay/Qualified Mortgage Rule Assessment. On September 14,2017, Bureau staff also issued 

its first no-action letter to Upstart Network. Additionally, the Bureau's plan for upcoming 

initiatives lays out a series of Calls for Evidence about various aspects of the Bureau's work. 

This section of the semi-annual report also lists out the Bureau's plans for upcoming proposed 

rules: Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans rule; the Expedited Funds 

Availability Act rule; the Debt Collection rule; and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act rule, as well 

as upcoming final rules: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Privacy Notice rule; Amendments Relating to 

Disclosure of Records and Information rule; and the Amendment to the Federal Mortgage 

Disclosure Requirements under the Truth in Lending Act rule. The semi-annual report contains 

additional details on these and other Bureau initiatives. 

The fourth section of the semi-annual report provides an analysis of complaints about consumer 

financial products or services that the Bureau has received and collected in its central database 

on complaints during the preceding year. During the period October I, 2016through September 

30, 2017, the Bureau handled approximately 317,200 consumer complaints. Most of those 

complaints were submitted through the Bureau's website. The Bureau does not verify all the 

facts alleged in complaints, but it takes steps to confirm a commercial relationship between the 

consumer and the company. Approximately 235,400 (or 74%) of all complaints handled were 

sent by the Bureau to companies for review and response. Companies have responded to 

approximately 93% of complaints sent to them for response during the period. Consumers did 

not receive a timely response from the company in only 3% of complaints. The top four 

complaints by the product category designated by the consumer when submitting the complaint 

are debt collection (27% ), credit or consumer reporting (27% ), mortgages ( 13% ), and credit 

cards (9%). 

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the fifth section of the semi-annual report discusses the 

public supervisory and enforcement actions to which the Bureau was a party during the 

preceding year. The Bureau's supervisory activities with respect to individual institutions are 

non-public. The Bureau has, however, issued numerous supervisory guidance documents and 

3 
83 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


bulletins during the preceding year. These documents are listed under section 3.3 of this report 

as "issued guidance documents undertaken within the preceding year." With regard to 

enforcement actions, the Bureau was a party in 53 public enforcement actions from October I, 

2016 through September 30, 2017. The detailed list of those actions, with a brief statement of 

the issues, is set out in section 5.2 of the semi-annual report. Section 5.2 also identifies those 

actions involving Office of Administrative Adjudication Orders with respect to covered persons 

that are not credit unions or depository institutions. 

The sixth section of the semi-annual report addresses actions taken regarding rules, orders, and 

supervisory actions with respect to covered persons that are not credit unions or depository 

institutions. The Bureau's Supervisory Highlights publications provide general information 

about the Bureau's supervisory activities at banks and nonbanks without identifying specific 

companies. The Bureau published four issues of Supervisory Higl!fights between October I, 

2016 and September 30, 2017. As noted in the previous paragraph, all public enforcement 

actions are list in section 5.2 of the semi-annual report. The brief statement of issues identifies 

those actions taken with respect to covered persons that are not credit unions or deposit 

institutions. 

The seventh section of the semi-annual report requires an assessment of significant actions by 

State attorneys general or State regulators relating to Federal consumer financial law. For 

purposes of the section I 0 16( c )(7) reporting requirement, the Bureau determines that any actions 

asserting claims pursuant to section I 042 of the Dodd-Frank Act are "significant." The Bureau 

is aware of two State Attorney General actions that were initiated during the reporting period and 

that asserted Dodd-Fmnk Act claims. The actions are listed in the semi-annual report. 

The eighth section of the semi-annual report provides an analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to 

fulfill the fair lending mission of the Bureau. This update is focused on highlights from the 

Bureau's fair lending enforcement4 and rulemaldng5 activities from October I, 2016 through 

September 30, 2017, and continued efforts to fulfill the fair lending mission of the Bureau, 

through supervision, interagency coordination, and outreach from April I, 2017 through 

September 30, 2017.6 The Bureau's Fair Lending Supervision program assesses compliance 

with Federal fair lending consumer financial laws and regulations at banks and nonbanks over 

which the Bureau has supervisory authority. As a result of the Bureau's efforts to fulfill its fair 

lending mission in this reporting period, the Bureau's Fair Lending Supervision program 

initiated II supervisory events at financial services institutions under the Bureau's jurisdiction to 

determine compliance with Federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable, and 

nondiscriminatory access to credit for both individuals and communities, including the 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Over 

the past year, the Bureau announced two fair lending public enforcement actions involving 

HMDA reporting and credit cards. First, as described in section 5 of this report, on March 15, 

4 Dodd-Frank Act section 10!6(c)(5). 

; Dodd-Frank Act section 1016(c)(3). 

• Dodd-Frank Act section !016(c)(8). 

4 
84 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


2017, the Bureau resolved an enforcement action against a national mortgage originator for 

violating HMDA by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 

2012 through 2014. Second, as described in section 5 of this report, on August 23,2017, the 

Bureau took action against a credit card company, for violating ECOA by discriminating against 

consumers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories by providing them 

with credit and charge card terms that were inferior to those available in the 50 United States. 

The ninth, and final, section of the semi-annual report provides an analysis of the efforts of the 

Bureau to increase workforce and contracting diversity consistent with the procedures 

established by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI). The Bureau has 

developed an agency-wide strategic plan-Diversity Strategic Plan-to guide the Bureau in its 

efforts to manage its diversity and inclusion goals and objectives.7 The Bureau also publishes an 

Annual OMWI report in the spring of each year. The 2017 OMWI Annual report was published 

on March 29,2018.8 Additionally, during FY 2017,9 the Bureau awarded 30% of contract 

dollars to small businesses enterprises (SBEs), some of which are also minority-owned or 

woman-owned businesses (MWOBs). The Bureau's contracting rate to small businesses exceeds 

the Small Business Administration's recommended goal for each Federal agency of23%. Of the 

30% of SBE contracts awarded at the Bureau in FY 2017, 10% went to small disadvantaged 

businesses (minority-owned). The total contract dollars awarded to woman-owned small 

businesses during this period was 11.9%. In accordance with the mandates in section 342(c)(2) 

of the Dodd-Frank Act, goal six of the Bureau's Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan describes 

the efforts the Bureau takes to determine that a contractor will ensure, to the maximum extent 

possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the contractor workforce, and, as 

applicable, subcontractors workforce. This concludes the overview of the Bureau's Fall2017 

semi-annual report to Congress. 

***** 

New strategic priorities 

As noted above, you have also requested that I discuss the activities of the Bureau during my 

tenure. I will begin by outlining the Bureau's new strategic priorities, and then I will provide an 

overview of the new approach I have taken in leading the Bureau. 

The Bureau's new strategic priorities are to recognize free markets and consumer choice and to 

take a prudent, consistent, and humble approach to enforcing the law. This reflects my 

1 https:l/s3.amazona ws.com/files.consumcrfinancc.govff/documcnts/20 1611_cfpb _ d iversity-and-inclusion·stratcgicplan-20 16-2020.pdf. 

• https://s3.amazonaws.com/fi les.consumcrfinance.gov/ffdocumcnts/20 1703 _cfpb_ OMWI-20 17 ·annual-rcport.pdf. 

• Data source is from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2017 from October I, 2016 through 

September 30. 2017. The datll are current as of October 4, 2017. FPDS data is subject to an OMB annual validation 

each January for the previous fiscal year. 

5 
85 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


understanding that consumers and creditors alike gain from mutual exchange, provided that 

promises are kept, terms are clearly disclosed, and property rights are protected. 

As an officer in the executive branch, l am sworn to execute the law, and that is what lam doing. 

That is all I should be doing. My job is to make sure the Bureau is acting consistently with our 

statutory responsibilities, to improve our daily operations and our interactions with consumers 

and industry, and to ensure we are accountable to the American people. 

Our recently published Strategic Plan outlines how I intend to fulfill the Bureau's statutory 

duties. Specifically, the Bureau's mission statement is "to regulate the offering and provision of 

consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws and to 

educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions." That is what 

Congress created us to do. 

And that is what we will do. We will adhere to the Bureau's statutory responsibilities. Our job 

is to enforce Federal consumer financial laws, and our focus will be on carrying out only those 

activities Congress explicitly wrote into Jaw. 

***** 

New approach 

The Bureau is going about its work in several new ways. First, to execute the new mission, the 

Bureau will continue to seek the counsel of others and make decisions only after weighing 

relevant available evidence and a full range of perspectives. Second, the Bureau will protect the 

legal rights of all, equally. And third, we will do what is right with confidence, acting with 

humility and moderation. 

That is why we launched the Call for Evidence-an initiative aimed at gathering public feedback 

on the wide range of work done by this agency. It is important to learn more about what is 

working and what needs to improve in the work done by the Bureau. An agency that is confident 

in its mission should care about getting it right. An agency should welcome constructive 

feedback and then learn from it. 

We are actively seeking this feedback. To date, the Bureau had issued II requests for 

information-RFis. We are seeking public comment on the Bureau's Civil Investigative 

Demands, administrative adjudications, enforcement processes, supervision processes, 

complaint reporting, external engagement strategies, our rulemaking process, rules issued by the 

Bureau, and rules the Bureau inherited. Most recently, we issued RFis on guidance and 

implementation support and consumer education. Later this week, we will issue an RFI on 

consumer complaints and inquiries. We have extended all of the comment periods to 90 days to 

give everyone more time to provide us with feedback. I encourage any interested parties to 

submit comments. Your comments will help the Bureau evaluate what we do and how we do it 

and determine whether changes are warranted. 

Another area where we are doing things differently is executing the Bureau's regulatory agenda. 

First, regulatory agencies like the Bureau are not legislatures. The Bureau has very broad 

6 
86 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


rulemaking authority to regulate consumer financial products and services. We must be very 

judicious in the use of this power. 

Second, we are committed to making sure the Bureau's regulations work not only for those who 

use consumer financial products and services but also for those who provide them. This means 

clear rules that, where appropriate, can be tailored to the business models of the companies 

subject to these rules. For instance, the Bureau is here to help protect people who use credit, but 

we're also here to establish clear guidelines for those who provide that credit because it is an 

important service for consumers and central to our capitalist system. 

Additionally, under my leadership the Bureau will implement a more robust quantitative analysis 

of potential costs and benefits to consumers and those we regulate. 

We are also opening up the rulemaking process to reconsider elements that may create 

unnecessary burden or restrict consumer choice. Specifically, the Bureau recently issued 

statements about revisiting the regulation issued under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and 

the "Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans" rule. 

Regarding HMDA, the Bureau intends to open a rulemaking to reconsider various aspects of the 

2015 HMDA rule, such as reporting thresholds and transactional coverage and reconsider data 

points not mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Furthermore, we have announced, with our 

partners at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that our supervisory 

examinations of 2018 HMDA data will be diagnostic. Our goal is to help companies identify 

any weaknesses, and we will credit good-faith efforts to comply. Financial institutions that 

submit HMDA data are doing so through the Bureau's new online platform, which allows an 

institution to upload loan application registers, review edits, certify data, and submit data for the 

filing year without the manual processes required previously. Over 5,800 institutions have 

submitted their 2017 data using the new platform. 

We are not pre-judging the outcome of any rulemaking; instead, I share our recent efforts with 

you to demonstrate that under new leadership the Bureau is willing to revisit existing rules to 

find ways to ease undue burdens and protect consumer choice. This we will do efficiently, 

effectively, and transparently. We will structure ourselves and conduct Bureau operations in a 

way that reduces redundancy and makes the best use of resources. 

Above all, the Bureau must be efficient. That means I will organize the agency and conduct its 

operations in ways that reduce redundancy and make the most of our resources. For example, 

the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity is being moved to the Director's Office, to 

become part of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness. The Office of Fair Lending will 

continue to focus on advocacy, coordination, and education. 

The Bureau will continue to enforce fair lending laws. The current fair lending supervision and 

enforcement functions will remain in the soon-to-be-renamed Division of Supervision, 

Enforcement, and Fair Lending. Accordingly, the Bureau will have one office, not two, that 

handles enforcement matters. It will have one office, not two, that handle supervision policy, 

7 
87 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


and one office, not two, that handle supervision examinations. This will make enforcement and 

supervision more efficient, effective, and accountable. 

In another change, the Bureau practice of "regulation by enforcement" has ceased. The Bureau 

will continue to enforce the law. That is our job, and we take it seriously. However, people will 

know what the rules are before the Bureau accuses them of breaking those rules. 

Through the changes I have discussed and others, I am making sure the Bureau is operating 

within its statutory mandate, is accountable for its actions, and is doing the American people's 

business in ways that are efficient and effective. 

***** 

The best that any Bureau Director can do on his own is to fulfill his responsibilities with humility 

and prudence and to temper his decisions with the knowledge that the power he wields could all 

too easily be used to harm consumers, destroy businesses, or arbitrarily remake American 

financial markets. But all human beings are imperfect, and history shows that the temptation of 

power is strong. Our laws should be written to restrain that human weakness, not empower it. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's 

semi-annual report to Congress for the period beginning April I, 2017 to September 30, 2017, as 

well as to provide you an update on the activities of the Bureau during my tenure. I would be 

happy to answer any of your questions about the Bureau's work. 

8 
88 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Apri12018 

Semi-annual report of the 

Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection 
89 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Message from 

Mick Mulvaney 

Acting Director 

I am pleased to present the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (Bureau's) Semi-Annual 

Report to Congress for the period beginning April!, 2017 and ending September 30, 2017. 

Shortly after President Trump appointed me as Acting Director, I made it clear that the Bureau 

will continue to execute the law, but will no longer go beyond its statutory mandate. In enacting 

Section 1016(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress enumerated nine elements for inclusion in the 

Bureau's semi-annual reports to Congress. This semi-annual report precisely meets this 

mandate. 

Moreover, Section 1012(c)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act contemplates that the Director will submit 

independent legislative recommendations to Congress. It is appropriate to include legislative 

recommendations in this semi-annual report, since doing so will afford Members of Congress a 

timely opportunity to ask me questions about my recommendations in the hearings at which I 

will testify. 

As has been evident since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is far too powerful, 

and with precious little oversight of its activities. Per the statute, in the normal course the 

Bureau's Director simultaneously serves in three roles: as a one-man legislature empowered to 

write rules to bind parties in new ways; as an executive officer subject to limited control by the 

President; and as an appellate judge presiding over the Bureau's in-house court-like 

adjudications. In Federalist No. 4 7, James Madison famously wrote that "[t]he accumulation of 

all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced 

the very definition of tyranny." Constitutional separation of powers and related checks and 

balances protect us from government overreach. And while Congress may not have transgressed 

any constraints established by the Supreme Court, the structure and powers of this agency are 

not something the Founders and Framers would recognize. By structuring the Bureau the way it 

SEMI·ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
90 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


has, Congress established an agency primed to ignore due process and abandon the rule of law 

in favor of bureaucratic fiat and administrative absolutism. 

The best that any Bureau Director can do on his own is to fulfill his responsibilities with 

humility and prudence, and to temper his decisions with the knowledge that the power he wields 

could all too easily be used to harm consumers, destroy businesses, or arbitrarily remake 

American financial markets. But all human beings are imperfect, and history shows that the 

temptation of power is strong. Our laws should be written to restrain that human weakness, not 

empower it. 

I have no doubt that many Members of Congress disagree with my actions as the Acting Director 

of the Bureau, just as many Members disagreed with the actions of my predecessor. Such 

continued frustration with the Bureau's lack of accountability to any representative branch of 

government should be a warning sign that a lapse in democratic structure and republican 

principles has occurred. This cycle will repeat ad infinitum unless Congress acts to make it 

accountable to the American people. 

Accordingly, I request that Congress make four changes to the law to establish meaningful 

accountability for the Bureau': 

1. Fund the Bureau through Congressional appropriations; 

2. Require legislative approval of major Bureau rules; 

3· Ensure that the Director answers to the President in the exercise of executive authority; and 

4. Create an independent Inspector General for the Bureau. 

I look forward to discussing these recommendations with all interested Members, and to 

testifying regarding this semi-annual Report to Congress. 

Sincerely, 

Mick Mulvaney 

1 Other than the Bureau's Acting Director, no other officer or agency of the United States approved these legislative 

recommendations prior to submission. The views contained herein are those of the Acting Director and do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the President. 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
91 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Table of Contents 

Message from Mick Mulvaney ................................................................................... 1 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ 3 

1. Significant problems faced by consumers in shopping for or 

obtaining consumer financial products or services ......................................... 5 

1.1 Credit invisibles .......................................................................................... s 

1.2 Financial education ................................................................................... 6 

2. Justification of the budget request of the previous year .................................. 7 

3. List of the significant rules and orders adopted by the Bureau, as 

well as other significant initiatives conducted by the Bureau, 

during the preceding year and the plan of the Bureau for rules, 

orders, or other initiatives to be undertaken during the upcoming 

period ................................................................................................................... 10 

3.1 Significant rules ....................................................................................... 11 

3.2 Less significant rules ............................................................................... 11 

3.3 Significant initiatives .............................................................................. 12 

3-4 Plan for upcoming initiatives .................................................................. 17 

3-5 Plan for upcoming rules .......................................................................... 19 

4. Analysis of complaints about consumer financial products or 

services that the Bureau has received and collected in its central 

database on complaints during the preceding year ........................................ 20 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
92 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


5. List, with a brief statement of the issues, of the public 

supervisory and enforcement actions to which the Bureau was a 

party during the preceding year ........................................................................ 23 

5.1 Supervisory activities .............................................................................. 23 

5.2 Enforcement activities ........................................................................... 23 

6. Actions taken regarding rules, orders, and supervisory actions 

with respect to covered persons which are not credit unions or 

depository institutions ....................................................................................... 44 

7. Assessment of significant actions by State attorneys general or 

State regulators relating to Federal consumer financial law .......................... 45 

8. Analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to fulfill the fair lending 

mission of the Bureau ........................................................................................ 47 

8.1 Fair lending supervision ......................................................................... 48 

8.2 Fair lending enforcement ....................................................................... 49 

8.3 Fair lending outreach ............................................................................. 50 

8.4 Interagency coordination ....................................................................... 50 

9. Analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to increase workforce and 

contracting diversity consistent with the procedures established 

by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion .............................................. 52 

9.1 Increasing workforce diversity .............................................. , ................. 53 

9.2 Increasing contracting diversity ............................................................. 54 

9-3 Diversity within the Bureau contractors' workforces ............................. 55 

4 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
93 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


1. Significant problems faced 

by consumers in shopping 

for or obtaining consumer 

financial products or . serv1ces 

1.1 Credit invisibles 

"Credit invisibles" refers to consumers who lack a credit record at one of the nationwide credit 

reporting companies. As a result, these consumers can face substantially reduced access to 

credit. The Bureau released the Data Point: Credit Invisi[:Jles in 2015 that estimated the 

demographic characteristics and number of credit invisible consumers. In June 2017, the 

Bureau released the D<'lta .. Point: Il~t:()miJ1gCredit Visibl~ that explored the means by which 

consumers transitioned out of credit invisibility. The Data Point found that most people who 

made this transition did so by age 25. However, consumers in low- and moderate-income 

neighborhoods made this transition at older ages than those in middle- or upper-income 

neighborhoods. Across all age groups and income levels, credit cards triggered the creation of 

consumer credit records more frequently than any other product. About 1-in-4 consumers first 

acquired their credit histories from an account for which others were also responsible (i.e., 

jointly held accounts or authorized user accounts), but the use of this method was notably less 

common in lower-income neighborhoods. 

Of the consumers who transition out of credit invisibility, about 65 percent appear to have 

transitioned by opening an account by themselves despite their lack of a credit history. 

Understanding what characteristics lenders are using to make loans to some credit invisible 

5 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
94 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


consumers but not others may have important implications for efforts to promote credit 

visibility. Additional research on the processes being used to underwrite loans for credit 

invisible consumers may help illuminate potential approaches to reducing credit invisibility. 

Following transition to credit visibility, a consumer's access to credit may also depend on 

whether the consumer is categorized as a "good" or "bad" credit risk. There is room for future 

research to delve deeper into the characteristics of credit records as they make the transition out 

of credit invisibility and thereafter. 

1.2 Financial education 

The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 directs the Bureau to ensure that "consumers 

are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about 

financial transactions"2 by "conducting financial education programs."3 The Bureau works to 

educate consumers in order to prepare and empower them with the knowledge and skills to 

make choices about money to achieve their own life goals. The Consumer Financial Protection 

Act directs the Bureau to report annually on our financial education activities and strategy to 

improve financial literacy.• The 2017 Financial Literacy Annual Report is available at 

ww.>y .. co nsumerfina.nce. gov/ data~ research j rcsearc h ~ rcpo rts j 2 o 17-financigl~Iiteracy ~annualreport. 

'12 u.s.c. ssu(b)(1). 

3 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(1). 

4 12 u.s.c. 5493(d)(4). 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
95 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


2. Justification of the budget 

request of the previous year 

The FY 2017 Strategic Plan, Budget, and Performance Plan and Report includes estimates of the 

resources needed for the Bureau to carry out its mission and describes the Bureau's performance 

goals and accomplishments, which align with the larger long-term Strategic Plan for FY 2013 to 

FY 2017. The justification of the FY 2017 budget request is available online at 

https :f/w\v\v. c(l I) sum erfir1 a11 c<e,g<Jy/ <Ib()IItc us/ilu<lg.,tcstr<It()gy /hu<lgetcai1 d-performaf1C.C!. 

Fiscal year 2017 spending through the end of the fourth quarter of FY 2017 

BUREAU FUND 

As of September 30,2017, the end of the fourth quarter ofFY 2017, the Bureau incurred 

approximately $593.5 million in obligationss during the fiscal year to carry out the authorities of 

the Bureau under Federal financial consumer law. Approximately $316.9 million was spent on 

employee compensation and benefits for the 1,645 Bureau employees who were on-board by the 

end of the fourth quarter. 

TABLE 1: FY 2017 SPENDING BY EXPENSE CATEGORY 

Personnel compensation 228,442,000 

Benefit compensation 88,425,000 

5An obligation is a transaction or agreement that creates a legal liability and obligates the government to pay for 

goods and services ordered or received. 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
96 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Travel 17,260,000 

Transportation of things 143,000 

Rents, communications, utilities & misc. 19,090,000 

Printing and reproduction 4,530,000 

Other contractual services 177,510,000 

Supplies & materials 5,726,000 

Equipment 37,946,000 

Land and structures 14,453,000 

Interest & dividends 1,000 

Total (as of September 30, 2017) $ 593,526,000 

FY 2017 funds transfers received from the Federal Reserve 

The Bureau is funded principally by transfers from the Federal Reserve System, np to the limits 

set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act. Funding from the Federal Reserve System for FY 2017 was 

capped at $646.2 million. As of September 30, 2017, the Bureau had received the following 

transfers for FY 2017. The amounts and dates of the transfers are shown below. 

TABLE 2: FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE 

$145.7M January 23, 2017 

$125.6M April19, 2017 

$84.6M August 1, 2017 

$602.0M Total 

-AdditionaiTD.formatiouaboutthe Bureall'sfinaoces,Tnciudiu)iiliformation about the Bureau's 

Civil Penalty Fund and Bureau-Administered Redress programs, is available in the annual 

financial reports and the CFO quarterly updates published online at 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
97 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


https:/ /_www.consu mcrfinancc.gov /about-usjbudgct~strategy /financial~rcporls/. Copies of the 

Bureau's quarterly funds transfer requests are available online at 

bttps:fi\\'\Vw,consnmerfin<mee,govjab()l!t~us[bnclg~t~s1rategyjfunds~transfer~requests/. 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
98 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


3. List of the significant rules 

and orders adopted by the 

Bureau, as well as other 

significant initiatives 

conducted by the Bureau, 

during the preceding year 

and the plan of the Bureau 

for rules, orders, or other 

initiatives to be undertaken 

during the upcoming period6 

6 Separate from the Bureau's obligation to include in this report "a list of the significant rules and orders adopted by 

the Bureau ... during the preceding year," 12 U.S.C. 5496(b)(3), the Bureau is required to "conduct an assessment 

of each significant rule or order adopted by the Bureau" under Federal consumer financial law "not later than 5 

years after the effective date of the subject rule or order," 12 U.S.C. 5512(d). The Bureau will issue separate notices 

as appropriate identifying rules and orders that qualify as significant for assessment purposes. 

10 SEMI·ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
99 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


3.1 

3.2 

Significant rules 

Final Rule: Arbitration Agreements (note, however, that this rule will not go into effect 

because Congress subsequently adopted a joint resolution of disapproval which the 

President signed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act)7 

Final Rule: Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans8 

Less significant rules9 

Final Rule: Prepaid Accounts under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and 

the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)10 

Final Rule: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) Ethnicity and Race Information 

Collection11 

Final Rule: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C)'2 

Final Rule: Amendments to Federal Mortgage Disclosure Requirements Under the Truth 

in Lending Act (Regulation Z)'3 

8 j1ttp~: I jvn~ry._y: f~_Q!?xa_lr:~gi_~!~}\g_Qyj go_GPXQ_en t~/2_f.n 7 /_ p j ~ 7[ ~q IJ:~~ f?q8jpayq?y-v~[licle:Pth~_-and-certain-b.ig!J-coR!­

iiJstallment-loans. 

9 This Hst excludes proposed rules, procedura] rules, and other misce11aneous routine rules. More infonnation about 

the Bureau's rulemaking activities is available in the Unified Agenda, at W\Y~\· • .~;eginfo.gov, and on the Bureau's 

public website, at https:/ /wvn'V,COnswnerfinance.gov/pqJicy-complial.H;:e/rulerna~ii.lg. 

10 https: I ;-.. n'Y\1\' Jederalregl~te,r .goyj do(uments/ 20.16 I 11j 2'?./ 2016-2A503/Pr~pai.4 :-9<:~Qtmts-under-the-electronic:­

fund-tra_n_sf~r_-?ct-p~gu~a.tion_-e-an<J:-.t.l.1~:-truth:-~n-}~l.l.(~jpg-?ct. 

n https: I j\\:;vw. fe<!eralregister.gov/ documents/2017/10 I 02/2017-2 0417 I equ al:credit-opportunity-act-regulation-bethnicity-and-race-information-collection. 

'

2 https: I fwww.fedcralregister.gov I documents/ 2017 I 09/13/20 17-18284/l)ome-mortgage-qisdosure-regulation -c. 

11 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
100 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


3.3 

Final Rule: Amendments to the 2013 Mortgage Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)'4 

Interim Final Rule: Mortgage Servicing Rules under the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act (Regulation X)'5 

Final Rule: Mortgage Servicing Rules under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)'6 

Significant initiatives 

Requests for Information on Assessment of Significant Rules under section 1022(d) 

o Request for Information Regarding 2013 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

Servicing Rule Assessment'? 

o Request for Information Regarding Remittance Rule Assessment'8 

o Request for Information Regarding Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule 

Asscssment'9 

13 https: J f \VV':\\:. federalregist~r .g~Jy j docu me_D ts /2017/08 j 11j 2q 17 ... :15704/ amendrn~nt.;;-to-federal-n~ortgage0isclosure-n;quir:en)enh;-t1nder-t.l)e-tf3..I~J1-:in-lending-act-regulation-z. 

14 h ttps: ( hn-\"\V. federal register .gqv/ documents /2() V? j ~ (~ / 19j2q 16-189Q1} arne.n,dments-to-the:-.2q 13_-mortgage-rul_~sunder-the-:-real.-estate-settlemcnt.:-p.roc.e.dures-act-r~gl}l.~tion-x. 

ts ht~ps;/ j\n\'Vv.f~der?~register.g0\"jdocuments/::!Ql7/.1.9.{l_Qjz_q_l7-::'.!-l.9.~?.1!WJD:gage-servicing:-rules.-u.n.der-the-rG.ak 

t:state-sc.t.tl~m ent-proced_ures":~GX- :r~gu lation :-x. 

l6 http~; I j y.._yf:-,V. fede_ralregister .gov I docUJl)~nts/20 18 J q 3/12 /20_18-04$23/mortgage-scrvi~ing.- rule?-Unc_lc:r:--.t_he-trutl~­

in-lenQ ilJg-a~.t- regu ~{t_tiqn-.z. 

17 https: / jv·,\\''W .fedcralregi ster .gov /documents/ 2017 f 05/11/2017-09 361/request-for-information-regarding -2013-

real-estate-settlement-J)l'Ocedqr~s-act-servicjlf,g-rule. 

18 h~tp~://ww·:.,:J~cJeralregister:._govjJocuments/2.0.17/03/24/2917-0S68r/rcque.~.t-for:-infonl)_atjqn-r~_garc}ingremittance-rule-assessment. 

'9 h_ttp~; // wwv-.· .federalregist er.goyjdoc:umE;n ts/ 2Q.l7/ qf, j Q ~/2c_n 7:-} 1_ 218/requ.eft:~ for- infm:mati0l_1-.r~ga~qi_n_g-a~~Ji~yto-rcpa}·qu!lljficd-mortgage-ruli~-;:tssessment. 

12 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
101 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Other Requests for Information: 

o Request for Information Regarding the Small Business Lending MarkeF0 

o Request for Information Regarding Consumer Access to Financial Records'1 

o Request for Information Regarding Use of Alternative Data and Modeling 

Techniques in the Credit Process 22 

o Request for Information Regarding Consumer Credit Card Market23 

No Action Letter: On September 14, 2017, Bureau staff issued its first no-action letter 

to Upstart Network, Inc., a company that uses alternative data in making credit and 

pricing decisions.24 The Bureau's no-action letter signified that Bureau staff had no 

present intention to recommend initiation of an enforcement or supervisory action 

against Upstart with regard to application of the ECOA and its implementing regulation, 

Regulation B. The letter applies to Upstart's automated model for underwriting 

applicants for unsecured non revolving credit, as that model is described in the 

company's application materials. The letter is specific to the facts and circumstances of 

Upstart and does not serve as an endorsement of the use of any particular variables or 

modeling techniques in credit underwriting. 

Explored Regulatory Burden: The Bureau established a Task Force to coordinate 

and deepen the agency's focus on concerns about regulatory burdens and projects to 

20 hltps:/ /WVM. federalregister,gov I doCU1!1Ct1lS I 2017 I os/ 15/2017-09732/req uest -for, iJ}formation-regarding-lheS~11al.l-:bu_s_in~$S-:lenQing-n~~J:"kE't. 

21 11t;:tp~; I j ww\v. t:~.<kralreglster: .. gq~' /9.ocvm~:m\s/ 201.6/11/ 2_2/ ~o 16-:24503/pr~paid -accouptS:-'!-1!H1~r-the:-~ Je~tronic-: 

f~:f}<,1-tra.J1sfer-:?ct-n~gt_I1ation_-~-~~)d:-the-truth-in-lending-act. 

22 h ttps: j jv,'"\yyv:fe.G-~r;llregister!.gqv i docu~n.ents/ 2017 J o_2j 2:1/20 17~03361/,request-for-i_nfor:m_ation- rega,rd~ng- use:'of: 

alten1ative-data-and-n)odeling-techr_1iques-in-the-cre(Ht. 

'3 https: I b''"' .federalregister.gov I documents/ 2017/03/1 o /2017-04797/ request ,f0r-information,regarqing, 

rQnsumer-cr~~Ht~r-_ard-m?_rket. 

'4 CFPB Announces First No-Action Letter to Upstart Network, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Sept. 14, 

2017), http;l:}/~Y!Yw_.£QTI;>,TJJTI~d1n~m:g:K0Y}~1bl!n1:-.u~j:pe}ysrQQJI1/rfpl1_-0.l)!)QUJ:tCE's-first-_nQ-ac_tJqn~letter-ups~artneh,7ork. 

13 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
102 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


identify and reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens consistent witb the Bureau 

purposes and objectives under section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Issued Guidance Documents: The Bureau issued the following bulletins and 

guidance documents over the past year: 2s 

o Statement on Supervisory Practices regarding Financial Institutions and Consumers 

Affected by Hurricane Maria; 26 

o Summer 2017 Supervisory Highlights;27 

o Statement on Supervisory Practices regarding Financial Institutions and Consumers 

Affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma; 28 

o Memorandum on Financial Institution and Law Enforcement Efforts to Combat 

Elder Financial Exploitation; 29 

o Fair Lending Report;3° 

o FFIEC HMDA Examiner Transaction Testing Guidelines;31 

o Compliance Management Systems Examination Procedures;32 

25 The Bureau posts many documents relating to compliance and guidance on its website, at 

http:/ /wv,'\v.consun;.erfinance.gov/guidance. 

26 https:/ /s3.ama;r:qna\\:s.com/fii~s~c.opt;;umerfinance.goY/f/docurnepts/20170.9_cfpb_statem.ent-on-superdsorypractice_llu.rricane-maria:Pdf. 

27 htt ps: I! s3.a ma~Qr\a \VS.CQ\11 I f}les.consumerfipance .govjfj ~ocumentsj201709_~_f_pQ_S_v P.Gf~.j~on'-)i igbJ5gh ts _ _Is~ue.-

16.pdf. 

28 ~lttps: // S3.amazonaws:~Qm/G.les.conspn.1grfina nc~ .gov Jf/ docmnen ts/ 20 1709_ cfpb_statGTP~P t -on-supet:.:'isorypra.;tj<;_c_hurricanet?.:-hm:vey-and-inna.pdf. 

29 https: / j SJ.amazonaws.cqm /f:iles.cons~merfinanc.e.goY/ f/ doc.um en ts/ 201708 _ dpb-treastny-finccn_.memo _elderfiP?.D_Gi.~J::-g~pioitation.pdf. 

3o https://~'~"\\V.fc<;leralregi:;;tq.gov/docum_ents/2ol7/Q6}ol/2017-11,118/fair-l_e11ding-repQ,n:Qf-the-cm;sumer­

:financial -;-protectimJ -:l?.ureau -_apri~::--~0 17. 

31 https:/ !s3.am;.tzonaws.cqii_1/files.coi)sm1)erfinance.goyj(/doen_l1)~lltS/20l708_cj})h_ffiec-hm.Qa-exa,n_1_i_D_ertransac~iqn_-testin_g-g~idennes.pdf. 

14 SEMI·ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FAll2017 
103 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


o Examination Report Template;33 

o Supervisory Letter Template;34 

o Semiannual Regulatory Agenda;3s 

o Compliance Bulletin No. 2017-01: Phone Pay Fee;36 

o Policy Guidance on Supervisory and Enforcement Priorities Regarding Early 

Compliance With the 2016 Amendments to the 2013 Mortgage Rules Under the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act 

(Regulation 2);37 

o Policy on Ex Parte Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings;38 

o Education Loan Examination Procedures;39 

o Spring 2017 Supervisory Highlights;4° 

3 2 https:j/s3.amazonaws.comjfi.les.consumerfinance.govjf/documents/201708_Gfph_rornpliance-managementreview_supervision-and-examination-manual.pdf . 

. 33 https://s3.<1111'-'!Zona.\YS~comjfiles.consl!mi;;:rfin-!lPCe.govjf/doqti~1e11ts/201708_cfpb_Examina.ti.on~.Report;-: 

Template. pdf. 

34 https: j I s3 .R}n.a~ona\YS .comf.(l.l~.~.qmsum_erfinan ce.l,O':'/ f/ documents j 201708 _ cfpl~ _Supervisory-: Lett_erTemplate.pdf. 

36 h t tps: j /vv-.."'.'':V :f?d~ralregister._gov /documents j :2DJ 7 j Q8 j o~f ;?9 ~2~ ~Q _1_$_$ f C9JJ1pJj:fli~_c;~:-_bq Ue_t_in_-20 17:--!1;1.-pJJQn~_-_fl.ayfee§-. 

37 https; I j ~ }~'"\'\~' .federa.h~egister.goy I do.cu m.ents/ :;!_Q 1_7/P_(l }3q j 20.1 "L: ~3799/ P91icy---gl,liQ~nG~-on-;;_u p~.rvisory-~nde_~lforrement:PJ:t9ri_ti.Ps-r~g;:t_I:i).i))g-:-~;;trl}~~cqJ11pl~<tnc~-\'l-itl]-_th.~-~~.9~6. 

38 http$.: /h·:ty..·w .fcd~rn,1regi~ter .gov/ documents/ ~017 j 04} 21/20.17-.o.8og6 j pqliCY:-.OP -ex.-part~-::f..1rese.n ~~tiO.J1_S- inn.tlemaking-pro<;:eedings. 

39 https:f/s3_.amazqnm:\'S.cOip[fj_I~s~cQnsun_1erfi_r:I!"-!-~t;:e.govjf/document~/2.0~706_cfph_E.duC£!tlon:-Loan-Servicing­

.Exam-Manual.pdf. 

4° httP!?.:/ j\y•sw. fe9~f!11_regi~t!:.~r.gov f docume.ntsj 2017,/ o.s/ f-'2}';.0 1_7-096.s8 I supe.n.isory-hig})-ljgh ts-spring-20 17. 

15 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
104 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


o Supervisory Highlights Consumer Reporting Special Edition;4' 

o Supervision and Examination Process Overview;42 

o Supervision and Examination Process;•3 

o Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda;44 

o Fair Credit Reporting Act Disclosures;45 

o Safe Harbors From Liability Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for Certain 

Actions Taken in Compliance With Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation 

Z);46 

o Compliance Bulletin 2016-03: Detecting and Preventing Consumer Harm from 

Production Incentives;•? 

o Fall 2016 Supervisory Highlights;48 

o Education Loan Examination Procedures;49 

41 ht.t p~; I Jyvvv:w .fed era lr~gister.gqv/ qo_cpmf:'nts/:fO~ 7/.04/ of)/ 20_17-0_6904/ sup~_f\ isory-hig11lightS-G0D)~Ul~er:­

reporti_ng-special-edition. 

42 h ttps: J js3 .am"!.ZQ119-.\~'~.:~9I11 j fil~s.conspmerfinan_ce.gqvj f/ dqcm11ents/ 0:32017 _ c_fp b _ e~amina tion -proce::;$:-

O\:'e:rview_supervisiqn-_<:}.n~:=~-~a_r:n_ir;tatiQp-mal)~,Ial.pdf. 

43 J1t tps: II S~l.a_ mazonaws.com f files.consumerfina nce.gov I(/ Pocumepts/ 0:12017 _ cfpb _ CX;3-n).i!)_at~on :-

Pf9~~.$$.-~VJ?CJ:'~·isjo~1-and-ex~minatiQI?:-.m~~IJ<:].l~p_d.f. 

44 h ttps.:J j w\yw. f~deralregister .gov I doeu men ts/ 2016 I 12/23/ 2.QJ.,6:-:?992l/ semi9-_nn~~aJ-.reg11l9 tqn:-agenda. 

45 https: 1/ vv·w~y' fedexa.lr:egistcr.gm'/ documCl1 t$/29~ <? j Ilj .1$ I 20 16_-277:j5/fair-credit-~-~pqrtjpg-:a~t ~disclosures: 

46 http?: I I \~~-.._'\v :fedl~pll regis~e:r ._gqvj documents/ ~.0 16/10 I~ 9 j ~o ~ 6- ~.8:902/ safe-lwrborS::-from-liability-vnder-the-fairdebt-cQllection-practices-act-fQr-certain-actions-taken. 

48 https: j /wvnv.federalregjster .govj documents/ 2016/ 1_1/22/ 2016-28094/ su pe_n·isory-high}igbt~~fall-2016. 

16 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
105 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


o Compliance Bulletin and Policy Guidance No. 2016-02, Service Providers;so 

o Reverse Mortgage Servicing Examination Procedures;s' and 

o Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) Examination ProceduresY 

3.4 Plan for upcoming initiatives 

Call for Evidencesa 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Civil Investigative Demands and 

Associated Processes54 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Rules of Practice for Adjudication 

Procecdingsss 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Enforcement ProcessesS6 

o Request for Information Regarding the Bureau's Supervision Programs7 

49]]-ttp:/ jv,-vvw.consumerfin.a~1~~.gov/documents/t383/1Q?_Ot_Q_<;:fph_EducationLoanServicingE~am}1anua1Cpd~:tte~p 

df. 

so http~: I h''/':_nv Jederalregister .go~·// 4o91.1Int:ntsj 7,9J f)) l_Q j 29 j 2_C) tf>-:25??59 j 9.0nw1iance-bulletin-and -pQ1ic_y-:guidance2.016-o2-service-prQy~der:s. 

http:fjv\'\YVI'.consumerfinanc_~ .. govfdocuments}t3_87_/~9~PI9_cfpb_ReverseMo~rtgagc$e.I)icingExaminationPro(;'edur 

es.pdf. 

52 bttp: ( j\YW\\' .con~u_m~rf~n~ n<;-e.gov /dq~p men tsj 13~ t/ ~ o ;20 16 _ cfpl?_ G f,.B 4.J~xam :t\·1an ualUp<;late. pQ.f. 

53 https:/ /'"""'':w.consumerfinagc~.goyjpolicy·-con!pl_i~q~~/nqtice-opp,ortunities:-f.O!UIU.entjqp~_IJ.-IJGtic.es/call-~orcvidence. 

54 https; / jvn\'\\' .federal register .govf documef"!ts/ 2018 J o 1/26 I 20 18-q 1435/request -for-jn formation-regarding-bureauf_hjl:inyesligqtjx<;:-JJ~l.1J.<mct:;;:-~n_(l_-::a~~QC:!?t~9::-Pr9C~~!"S'$· 

ss http~: ;;-.. xyrw. fecJetalregtster.gov I do.cum~nts I 2.018_/ 02j os/ 29 ~i?-.022QR 1 request -fq.r:-.i.t~for.rnation -rt?gardingbureau-rules-of-prB,.Gti~g-f9I:-adjudication.-pro_cee9i.:t:lg). 

56 htt ps: I !Vo::.Yw JeQ.~r;.:tlregister .goy/ docml}ents I 2018! 0;2 j 12j 2.Q1 8-0271.0 j request -for-ipfonnation-regarding-burcauenforcement-pl:~:H:::es.~e~. 

17 SEMI·ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL2017 
106 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


o Request for Information Regarding Bureau External Engagements58 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Public Reporting Practices of Consumer 

Complaint InformationsY 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Rulemaking Proccsses60 

o Request for Information Regarding the Bureau's Adopted Regulations and New 

Rulemaking Authorities61 

o Request for Information Regarding the Bureau's Inherited Regulations and Inherited 

Rulemaking Authorities62 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Guidance and Implementation Support63 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Financial Education Programs64 

o Request for Information Regarding Bureau Responses to Consumer Inquiries6s 

57 https; I }\\1v:-.v. federalregi.~tex .goy/ d.ocu ments/2t,H8/ 02/20/2018-03358/ re.qt~~~t~ for-infon1wti<m: rGgarding-th_eQui:~a~~:-.5_\lJ)t::'rvision-progpu_n. 

58 https: I I wy{\\'. fed~r!tlregister.gov j dQcuments/ ~o ~$/ 0'2/ 26j2o 18-03788 jre.q).!~5t: fRr:_inf~_H'ITI$-Jjqn :r~g~r_<Jjng_-_l;m:reau­

~.~1~I:n?J:-_~pgag~ments. 

59 ht t ps: I I s3.a 11)2;zona_\Ys.cqm/ flles.consun_1erfi.na_g<;~ .govjfj do_curnents/ cfpb _rfi_ complaint-reporting_ 0320 18.pdf. 

60 https:j jwvvyv . .regulatlons.go,jdocument?.O:=:CFPB-20.I8-oOo9-00.Ql 

61 https:j jwv-.~-~.:'-r~gulatior~s.gqv/4ocume.n_t?D=CFJ;>B-2o18-ooll-0001 

62 https:/ /Vv'\\'yv.regulations.govjdocument?D=CFPB-2018-ool2-0001 

6

3 https://\o\'YVW .. eonsumE;:!rf!nanee.go.v/B;bout-usjnewsroomjcfp~-issues-req~es_t.:i.n.formatio.n:guidanr_~:­

implemcntat,ior)-support/ 

64 Forthcoming 

65 Forthcoming 

18 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
107 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


3.5 Plan for upcoming rules 

Upcoming proposed rules: 

o Payday, Vehicle title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans: the Bureau 

announced in January 2018 that it intends to open a rulemaking to reconsider its 

2017 rule titled Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans. 

Lenders would not need to comply with most provisions of the 2017 rule until August 

2019. 

o The Expedited Funds Availability Act (Regulation CC): the Bureau will work with the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to issue jointly a rule that includes 

provisions within the Bureau's authority. 

o Debt Collection Rule: the Bureau will work towards releasing a proposed rule 

concerning FDCPA collectors' communications practices and consumer disclosures. 

o Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C): the Bureau announced in December 2017 

that it intends to open a rulemaking to reconsider various aspects of the Bureau's 

2015 rule titled Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C), which could involve 

issues such as the institutional and transactional coverage tests and the rule's 

discretionary data points. 

Upcoming final rules 

o Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) (Regulation P): the Bureau is working towards 

finalizing an amendment to Regulation P concerning annual notice requirements. 

o Amendments Relating to Disclosure of Records and Information: This rule will 

include procedures used by the public to obtain information from the Bureau under 

the Freedom ofinformation Act, the Privacy Act of1974, and in legal proceedings. It 

will also address the protection and disclosure of confidential information that the 

Bureau obtains in connection with the exercise of its authorities under Federal 

consumer financial law. 

o Amendment to the Federal Mortgage Disclosure Requirements under the Truth in 

Lending Act (Regulation Z): the Bureau intends to finalize a proposed amendment 

rdated to the use of Closing Disclosures to determine good faith disclosure of 

estimated closing cost. 

19 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
108 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


4. Analysis of complaints about 

consumer financial products 

or services that the Bureau 

has received and collected in 

its central database on 

complaints during the 

preceding year 

During the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, the Bureau handled 

approximately 317,200 consumer complaints.66 Approximately So% of all consumer complaints 

were submitted through the Bureau's website, 8% via referrals, and 5% via telephone calls with 

the remainder submitted by mail, email, and fax. The Bureau does not verify all the facts alleged 

in complaints, but takes steps to confirm a commercial relationship between the consumer and 

the company. Approximately 235,400 (or 74%) of all complaints handled were sent by the 

Bureau to companies for review and response.67 Companies have responded to approximately 

66 All data are current through September 30, 2017. This analysis excludes multiple complaints submitted by a given 

consumer on the same issue and whistleblower tips. The Bureau does not verify all the facts alleged in complaints, 

but takes steps to confirm a commercial relationship behveen the consumer and the company. For more 

information on our complaint process refer to O\lr \V1[:~1$j_te, https://'(1-J:~:~y .. copsumed~1ance.g_qvj~OIT!p!aint/pr:o~:e.?~· 

67The remaining complaints were referred to other regulatory agencies (15%), found to be incomplete (4%), or are 

pending with the consumer or the Bureau (3% and 4%, respectively). After the Bureau fonvards complaints to 

20 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
109 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


93% of complaints sent to them for response during the period. Company responses must 

include descriptions of steps taken or that will be taken, communication,s received from the 

consumer, any follow-up actions or planned follow-up actions, and a categorization of the 

response. Companies' responses describe a range of relief such as refunding a fee, providing 

mortgage foreclosure alternatives that help consumers keep their home, stopping unwanted 

calls from debt collectors, cleaning up consumers' credit reports by correcting submissions sent 

to or reported by consumer reporting agencies, restoring or removing a credit line, correcting 

account information, and addressing formerly unmet customer service issues. Consumers did 

not receive a timely response from the company in 3% of complaints. 

The chart below shows the distribution complaints by the product category designated by the 

consumer when submitting the complaint. There is a certain degree of unavoidable overlap 

between these categories. For example, a consumer whose grievance arises from the collection of 

a credit card debt may designate the complaint as a "debt collection" complaint or a "credit card" 

complaint. 

FIGURE 1: CONSUMER COMPLAINTS BY PRODUCT'58 

Vehicle loan or lease 1111!11 3% 

Personal loan !llll' 2% 

Money transfer or service, virtual currency-- 2% 

Payday loan 1\11 '"/o 

Prepaid card R 0.7% 

Credit repair 

Tlt!e loan ! Q_ 1 ~~(} 

i-!81 -27% 

- U27% 

companies, the company has 15 days to respond to the consumer and the Bureau. In some cases, the company 

provides a partial response within 15 days and a final response in 6o days. Company responses provided outside of 

the 15-day or 6o-day response windows are deemed untimely. 

68 Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 

21 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
110 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Response analyzes consumer complaints, including completeness, and timeliness of a 

company's responses as well as consumers' feedback about that company's responses. Consumer 

feedback about company responses -both positive and negative -provides helpful insight into 

which issues are being addressed and how companies are addressing the concerns consumers 

raise in their complaints. 

Consumer Response shares complaint data and analyses, and offers insights to other offices to 

help the Bureau understand problems consumers are experiencing in the marketplace and the 

impact of those experiences on their Jives, develop tools to educate and empower people to know 

their rights and protect themselves, scope and prioritize examinations and ask targeted 

questions when examining companies' records and practices, and inform enforcement 

investigations to help stop unfair practices as the Bureau identifies them. Consumer Response 

also publishes complaint data and reports to ensure other regulators, consumers, and the 

marketplace have the complaint information needed to improve the functioning of the consumer 

financial markets for such products and services.69 

6' During the reporting period, the Bureau published seven complaint reports on the following financial products 

(each covering a different geographic location):about prepaid card, other financial service, debt collection, mortgage, 

credit reporting, credit cards, and student loans complaints, and four special topic complaint reports on these 

special topics: about older consumers, consumer feedback, servicemembers, and the so-state report. The Bureau 

also publishes the Consumer Response Annual Report, which provides a more detailed analysis of complaints. 

These reports can be viewed at https.:/ j\\~'\v.coqsumerfii)ance.govfrlata-res~.archjresearch-reportt;. 

22 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
111 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


5. List, with a brief statement of 

the issues, of the public 

supervisory and enforcement 

actions to which the Bureau 

was a party during the 

preceding year 

5.1 Supervisory activities 

The Bureau's supervisory activities with respect to individual institutions are non-public. The 

Bureau has, however, issued numerous supervisory guidance documents and bulletins during 

the preceding year. These documents are listed under Section 3-3 as issued guidance documents 

undertaken within the preceding year. 

5.2 Enforcement activities 

The Bureau was a party in the following public enforcement actions from October 1, 2016, 

through September 30, 2017, detailed as follows. This section also identifies those actions 

involving Office of Administrative Adjudication Orders with respect to covered persons which 

are not credit unions or depository institutions. 

In the Matter ofPHH Corp. et al. (File No. 2014-CFPB-0002). On January 29, 2014, the 

Bureau filed a notice of charges alleging PHH and its affiliates violated the Real Estate 

23 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
112 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Settlement Procedures Act's ("RESPA") prohibition on giving or receiving anything of value 

pursuant to an agreement to refer real estate settlement services. The Bureau alleges that when 

PHH originated mortgages, it referred real estate transactions for which mortgage insurance 

was required to certain mortgage insurance companies. In exchange for these referrals, the 

Bureau alleges these insurers purchased "reinsurance" from PHH's subsidiary, Atrium. The 

Bureau alleges that the reinsurance premiums were kickbacks paid for referrals in violation of 

RESP A. PHH denied the charges. A hearing before an administrative law judge was conducted 

starting on March 24, 2014. The administrative law judge issued a recommended decision on 

November 25, 2014. Both parties cross-appealed to the Director. The Director issued a final 

order on June 4, 2015, and PHH petitioned for review before the D.C. Circuit. On October 11, 

2016, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the Director's order on constitutional and 

statutory grounds. On January 31, 2018, having in the interim vacated the panel decision, the en 

bane D.C. Circuit reversed the panel's constitutional holding against the Bureau, reinstated the 

panel's statutory holdings against the Bureau, and remanded the matter to the Bureau for 

further proceedings. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Golden Valley Lending, Inc., Silver 

Cloud Financial, Inc., Mountain Summit Financial, Inc., and Majestic Lake 

Financial, Inc. (D. Kan. No. 17-cv-2521). On April27, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint 

against four online lenders-Golden Valley Lending, Inc., Silver Cloud Financial, Inc., Mountain 

Summit Financial, Inc., and Majestic Lake Financial, Inc.-alleging they deceived consumers by 

collecting debt the consumers did not legally owe. Specifically, the Bureau alleged that the four 

lenders could not legally collect on these debts because the loans were void under state laws 

governing interest rate caps or the licensing of lenders. The Bureau further alleged that the 

lenders made deceptive demands and illegally took money from consumer bank accounts for 

debts that consumers did not legally owe. On October 10, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss. On January 18, 2018, the Bureau voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nationwide Biweekly Administration, 

Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. No. 3:15-cv-2106). On May 11, 2015, the Bureau filed a complaint against 

Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc., Loan Payment Administration LLC, and DanielS. 

Lipsky alleging that they engaged in abusive and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the 

CFPA and the Telemarketing Sales Rules (TSR) regarding a mortgage payment product known 

as the "Interest Minimizer Program," or IM Program. The Bureau alleged that the defendants 

misrepresented their affiliation with consumers' mortgage lenders, the amount of interest 

savings consumers would realize and when consumers would achieve savings on the IM 

Program, consumers' ability to attain the touted savings on their own or through a low- or no24 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
113 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


cost option offered by the consumers' servicer, and fees for the program. The Bureau sought a 

permanent injunction, consumer redress, and civil penalties. A trial was held beginning on April 

24, 2017, and on September 8, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order finding that the 

defendants had engaged in deceptive and abusive conduct in violation of the CFPA and TSR. The 

Court imposed a $7.93 million civil money penalty, but denied the Bureau's request for 

restitution and disgorgement. On November 9, 2017, the court reduced the previous order to a 

judgment that included a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from engaging in 

specified acts or practices, and on March 12, 2018, the court denied defendants' motions to alter 

or amend that judgment. Defendants have appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the case remains 

pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Navient Corporation, Navient 

Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (M.D. Pa. No. 3:17-cv-101). On 

January 18, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint against Navient Corporation and its subsidiaries, 

Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. The Bureau alleges that Navient 

Solutions and Navient Corporation steered borrowers toward repayment plans that resulted in 

borrowers paying more than other options; improperly reported to credit reporting agencies the 

payment status of disabled borrowers; deceived private student loan borrowers about 

requirements to release their co-signer from the loan; and repeatedly incorrectly applied or 

misallocated borrower payments to their accounts. The Bureau also alleges that Pioneer and 

Navient Corporation misled borrowers about the effect of rehabilitation on their credit reports 

and the amount of collection fees that would be forgiven in the federal loan rehabilitation 

program. Through its action, the Bureau seeks consumer redress and injunctive relief. On March 

24, 2017, Navient moved to dismiss the complaint. On August 4, 2017, the court denied 

Navient's motion. The case remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen 

Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (S.D. Fla. No. 17-cv90495). On April2o, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint against mortgage loan servicer Ocwen 

Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries alleging they used inaccurate and incomplete 

information to service loans, misrepresented to borrowers that their loans had certain amounts 

due, illegally foreclosed on homeowners that were performing on agreements on loss mitigation 

options, enrolled and charged consumers for add-on products without their consent, failed to 

adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints, and engaged in other conduct in 

violation of the CFPA, TILA, FDCPA, RESPA, and HPA. On June 23,2017, Ocwen moved to 

dismiss. That motion remains pending. 

25 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
114 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. TCF National Bank (D. Minn. No. 0:17-cv166). On January 19, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint against TCF National Bank alleging TCF 

misled consumers into costly overdraft services in violation of Regulation E and the CFP A. 

Specifically, the Bureau alleges that TCF designed its application process to obscure the 

overdraft fees on one-time debt purchases and ATM withdrawals and make overdraft services 

seem mandatory for new customers to open an account. The Bureau's lawsuit seeks redress for 

consumers, an injunction to prevent future violations, and a civil money penalty. On September 

8, 2017, the court granted TCF's motion to dismiss the Bureau's EFTA claims but denied the 

motion to dismiss the Bureau's UDAAP claims. The case remains pending. 

In the Matter of Meridian Title Corporation (File No. 2017-CFPB-0019) (not a credit 

union or depository institution). On September 27, 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order 

against real estate settlement services provider Meridian Title Corporation finding that it 

steered consumers to a title insurer owned in part by several of its executives without making 

disclosures about the businesses' affiliation. The Bureau found that Meridian failed to disclose 

its relationship with the title insurer and that Meridian illegally benefitted from the referrals for 

title insurance. The Bureau's consent order requires Meridian to ensure that it ceases the illegal 

practice, provides disclosures whenever it makes a covered referral, and pay up to $1.25 million 

in redress. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Top Notch Funding II, LLC, Rory 

Donadio, and John "Gene" Cavalli (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:17-cv-7114). On September 19, 2017, 

the Bureau filed a complaint alleging that Top Notch Funding and two individuals associated 

with the company made misrepresentations in loan offerings to consumers who were awaiting 

payment from settlements in legal cases or from victim-compensation funds. On January 30, 

2018, the court entered a stipulated final judgment and order. The order prohibits the 

defendants from offering or providing such products in the future and requires them to pay 

$75,000 in civil money penalties. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. The National Collegiate Master Student 

Loan Trust, et al. (D. Del. No. 1:17-cv-01323); In the Matter of Transworld Systems, 

Inc. (File No. 2017-CFPB-0018) (not a credit union or depository institution). On September 

18, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint and proposed consent judgment against several National 

Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (collectively, "NCSLT") alleging they brought debt collection 

lawsuits for private student loan debt that the companies couldn't prove was owed or was too 

old to sue over; that they filed false and misleading affidavits or provided false and misleading 

testimony; and that they falsely claimed that affidavits were sworn before a notary. The 

26 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
115 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


proposed consent judgment against the NCSLT would require an independent audit of all 

8oo,ooo student loans in the NCSLT portfolio. It would also prohibit the NCSLT, and any 

company it hires, from attempting to collect, reporting negative credit information, or filing 

lawsuits on any loan the audit shows is unverified or invalid. In addition, it would require the 

NCSLT to pay at least $19.1 million, which would include initial redress to harmed consumers, 

disgorgement, and a civil money penalty. Several entities have moved to intervene to object to 

the proposed consent judgment. The court has not yet ruled on these motions, and the case 

remains pending. On September 18, 2017, the Bureau issued a separate consent order against 

the NCSLT's debt collector, Transworld Systems (TSI), for filing false or misleading affidavits, 

providing false or misleading testimony, and filing debt collection lawsuits when the companies 

could not prove the debt was owed. The Bureau's order requires injunctive relief and for TSI to 

pay a $2.5 million civil penalty. 

In the Matter of Zero Parallel, LLC (File No. 2017-CFPB-0017) (not a credit union or 

depository institution). On September 6, 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against online 

lead aggregator Zero Parallel, LLC. The Bureau found that Zero Parallel steered consumers 

toward lenders who offered illegal or unlicensed loans that were void in the consumers' states. 

The Bureau also found Zero Parallel sold consumers' payday and installment loan applications 

to lenders it knew were likely to make void loans that the lenders had no legal right to collect. 

The Bureau's order requires that Zero Parallel end its illegal conduct and pay a $10o,ooo civil 

penalty. 

In the Matter of American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, 

FSB (File No. 2017-CFPB-0016). The Bureau issued a consent order against American Express 

Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB (collectively, American Express) finding they 

violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by discriminating against consumers in 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories. The Bureau found that over the 

course of at least ten years, American Express provided these consumers credit and charge card 

terms that were inferior in many respects to those available in the so U.S. states. The Bureau 

also found that American Express discriminated against certain consumers with Spanishlanguage preferences. American Express paid approximately $95 million in redress before the 

order was issued. The Bureau's order requires American Express to pay at least another $1 

million in compensation, and to develop and implement a comprehensive compliance plan to 

ensure that it provides credit and charge cards to affected consumers in a non-discriminatory 

manner. The violations of ECOA are further discussed in the Section 8.2 of this report. 

27 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
116 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Aequitas Capital Management, Inc., 

Aequitas Management LLC, Aequitas Holdings, LLC, Aequitas Commercial 

Finance LLC, Campus Student Funding, LLC, CSF Leverage I LLC, Aequitas 

Income Opportunity Fund, and Aequitas Income Protection Fund (D. Or. No. 3:17-

cv-01278). On August 17, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint against Acquitas Capital 

Management, Inc. and related entities alleging they aided the Corinthian Colleges in 

misrepresenting compliance with federal student lending laws. The Bureau alleged that Aequitas 

enabled Corinthian to make high-cost private loans to Corinthian students so that it would seem 

as if the school was making enough outside revenue to meet the requirements for receiving 

federal student aid dollars. The Bureau also alleged that both Aequitas and Corinthian knew 

students could not afford these high-interest loans. On September 1, 2017, the court entered a 

final judgment and order that included approximately $183.3 million in loan forgiveness and 

reduction. 

In the Matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (File No. 2017-CFPB-0015). On August 2, 

2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., for failures related 

to information it provided for checking account screening reports. Banks screen potential 

customers based on reports about prior checking account behavior created by consumer 

reporting companies. The Bureau found tbat JPMorgan Chase did not have proper processes in 

place for reporting accurate information for these reports and did not inform consumers about 

the results of their reporting disputes and key aspects of their checking account application 

denials. The Bureau's order requires the bank to pay a $4.6 million penalty and implement 

necessary changes to its policies to ensure accurate information is reported, inform consumers 

of investigation outcomes, and provide consumers with the contact information of the consumer 

reporting company that supplied information that JPMorgan Chase used to deny an application 

for a deposit account. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Park View Law (f.k.a. Prime Law 

Experts, Inc.) and Arthur Barens (C.D. Cal. 2:17-cv-04721); Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau v. Commercial Credit Consultants (d. b. a. Accurise); IMC 

Capital L.L.C. ( a.k.a. Imperial Meridian Capital L.L.C., Imperial Capital, and 

IMCA Capital L.L.C); Prime Credit, L.L.C. (a.k.a. Prime Marketing, L.L.C.; d.b.a. 

Prime Credit Consultants); Blake Johnson; and Eric Schlegel, (C.D. Cal. No. 2:17-cv04720). On June 27, 2017, the Bureau filed complaints against four California-based credit 

repair companies and three individuals alleging they misled consumers and charged illegal fees. 

The Bureau alleged that the companies charged illegal advance fees for credit repair services and 

misrepresented their ability to repair consumers' credit scores. On June 30, 2017, the court 

28 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
117 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


entered a stipulated final judgment and order against Prime Credit, L.L.C., IMC Capital, L.L.C., 

Commercial Credit Consultants, Blake .Johnson, and Eric Schlegel, ordering them to pay a civil 

money penalty of more than $1.5 million. On July 10, 2017, the court entered a second 

stipulated final judgment against Park View Law and its owner Arthur Barens ordering them to 

pay $500,000 in disgorgement. The orders also prohibit all defendants from doing business 

within the credit repair industry for five years. 

In the Matter of Fay Servicing, LLC (File No. 2017-CFPB-0014) (not a credit union or 

depository institution). On June 7, 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against mortgage 

servicer Fay Servicing finding that it failed to provide mortgage borrowers with the protections 

against foreclosure that are required by law. The Bureau found that Fay violated the Bureau's 

servicing rules by failing to send or timely send consumers critical information regarding the 

process to apply for foreclosure relief. The Bureau also found that in some instances Fay 

launched or moved forward with the foreclosure process while borrowers were actively seeking 

help to save their homes. The Bureau's order requires Fay to comply with mortgage servicing 

rules and pay up to $1.15 million to harmed borrowers. 

In the Matter of Security National Automotive Acceptance Company, LLC (File No. 

2017-CFPB-0013) (not a credit union or depository institution). On April26, 2017, the Bureau 

issued a consent order against Security National Automotive Acceptance Company (SNAAC), an 

auto lender specializing in loans to servicemembers, finding that it violated a Bureau consent 

order. In 2015, the Bureau issued a consent order requiring SNAAC to pay both redress and a 

civil penalty for illegal debt collection tactics, including making threats to contact 

servicemembers' commanding officers about debts and misrepresenting the consequences of not 

paying. In the 2017 order, the Bureau found that SNAAC violated the 2015 order by failing to 

provide more than $1 million in refunds and credits. The Bureau's 2017 consent order requires 

SNAAC to pay the redress it owes to affected consumers under the 2015 order and pay an 

additional $1.25 million civil penalty. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P .A. 

(N.D. Ohio No. 1:17-cv-oo817). On Apri117, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint against the debt 

collection law firm Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., alleging it misrepresented in 

collection letters to consumers that attorneys were involved in collecting the debt. Specifically, 

the Bureau alleges the law firm made statements on collection calls and sent collection letters 

that created the false impression that attorneys had meaningfully reviewed the consumers' files, 

when no such review had occurred. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and the 

29 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
118 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


imposition of a civil money penalty. On September 29, 2017, the court denied the law firm's 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case remains pending. 

In the Matter of Experian Holdings, Inc., Experian Iliformation Solutions, Inc., 

and Consumerinfo.com, Inc., djbja Experian Consumer Services (File No. 2017-

CFPB-0012) (not a credit union or depository institution). On March 23, 2017, the Bureau 

issued a consent order action against Experian and its subsidiaries, finding they misrepresented 

the usefulness of credit scores they provided to consumers. The Bureau also found that Experian 

violated Regulation V, the implementing regulation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 

through improper advertising practices. The Bureau's order requires Experian to accurately 

represent the value of the credit scores it provides and pay a $3 million civil money penalty. 

In the Matter ofNationstar Mortgage LLC (File No. 2017-CFPB-0011) (not a credit union 

or depository institution). On March 15 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against 

Nationstar Mortgage LLC finding it violated the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by 

submitting mortgage loan data for 2012 through 2014 containing substantial errors. The Bureau 

found that Nationstar's HMDA compliance systems were deficient and not reasonably adapted 

to avoid such errors. The consent order requires Nationstar to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty, 

develop and implement an effective compliance management system, and correct its HMDA 

reporting inaccuracies from 2012 to 2014. The violations of HMDA are further discussed in 

Section 8.2 of this report. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC, RD Legal 

Finance, LLC, and RD Legal Funding Partners, LP, and Roni Dersovitz (S.D.N.Y. 

No. 1:17-cv-890). On February 7, 2017, the Bureau and the New York Attorney General filed a 

complaint against RD Legal Funding, LLC, two related entities, and the companies' founder and 

owner, Roni Dersovitz, alleging that they made misrepresentations to 9/11 first responders and 

NFL concussion victims and engaged in abusive practices in connection with cash advances on 

settlement payouts from victim-compensation funds and lawsuit settlements. The lawsuit seeks 

monetary relief, disgorgement, and civil money penalties. On May 15, 2017, the defendants 

moved to dismiss the Bureau's complaint. The court has not yet ruled, and the case remains 

pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Woodbridge Coins and Jewelry 

Exchange, Inc. d/b/a Woodbridge Gold & Pawn (E. D. Va. No. 1:17-cv-141). On February 

2, 2017, the Bureau and the Attorney General of Virginia filed a complaint against Woodbridge 

Coins and Jewelry Exchange, Inc., alleging that it misstated the charges associated with pawn 

loans. Specifically, the complaint alleged that since at least May 2014, Woodbridge disclosed 

30 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
119 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


deceptively low annual percentage rates (APR) that did not reflect the fees and charges 

associated with the loans. The Bureau further alleged that these inaccurate disclosures in many 

cases understated the true APR by as much as half the actual cost. On February 7, 2017, the 

court entered a stipulated final judgment and order against Woodbridge, which required it to 

pay over $56,000 in restitution, $17,000 in disgorgement, and a $5,000 civil penalty, and to 

make accurate disclosures. 

In the Matter of UniRush LLC and Mastercard International Incmporated (File 

No. 2017-CFPB-0010) (not a credit union or depository institution). On February 1, 2017, the 

Bureau entered a consent order against Mastercard and UniRush finding that disruptions of 

UniRush's prepaid debit card system left tens ofthousands of consumers unable to access their 

money. The Bureau found that preventable failures by Mastercard and UniRush before, during, 

and after UniRush's changeover to Mastercard as a new payment processor in 2015 meant that 

many customers could not use their Rush Card to get their paycheck funds and other direct 

deposits, take out cash, make purchases, pay bills, or get accurate balance information. The 

Bureau further found that UniRush then failed to provide customer service to many consumers 

who reached out for help during the service disruption. The Bureau's order requires Mastercard 

and UniRush to pay an estimated $10 million in restitution and a civil money penalty of $3 

million. 

In the Matter of Prospect Mortgage, LLC (File No. 2017-CFPB-006); Planet Home 

Lending, LLC (File No. 2017-CFPB-0007); Willamette Legacy, LLC dba Keller 

Williams Mid-Willamette, (File No. 2017-CFPB-oooS); and RGC Services, Inc. dba 

RejMax Gold Coast Realtors (File No. 20q-CFPB-0009) (not a credit union or depository 

institution). On January 31, 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against Prospect Mortgage, 

LLC, a major mortgage lender, finding that it paid illegal kickbacks for mortgage business 

referrals. On the same day, the Bureau also issued consent orders against two real estate brokers 

- RGC Services, Inc., and Willamette Legacy, LLC -and a mortgage servicer, Planet Home 

Lending, LLC, finding they took illegal kickbacks from Prospect. The Bureau also found Planet 

violated the FCRA by improperly using credit reports to market Prospect to its customers. The 

Bureau's orders imposed injunctive relief, and required Prospect to pay a $3.5 million civil 

penalty; ReM ax Gold Coast to pay a $50,000 civil penalty; Keller Williams Mid-Willamette to 

pay $145,000 in disgorgement and a $35,000 civil penalty; and Planet to pay $265,000 in 

consumer redress. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Vincent Howard, Lawrence W. 

Williamson, Howard Law, P.C., The Williamson Law Firm, LLC, and Williamson 

31 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
120 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


& Howard, LLP (C.D. Cal. No. 8:17-cv-161). On January 30, 2017, the Bureau filed a 

complaint against a number oflaw firms and attorneys alleging that they violated the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule by: (1) charging illegal fees to consumers seeking debt relief and 

providing substantial assistance to Morgan Drexen and Walter Ledda with knowledge that 

Morgan Drexen and Ledda were charging illegal debt relief fees; and (2) misrepresenting that 

consumers would not be charged advance fees for debt relief services when, in fact, they were. 

The Bureau alleges that Howard Law, P.C., the Williamson Law Firm, LLC, and Williamson & 

Howard, LLP, as well as attorneys Vincent Howard and Lawrence Williamson, ran this debt 

relief operation along with Morgan Drexen, Inc., which shut down in 2015 following the 

Bureau's lawsuit against that company. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and 

the imposition of civil money penalties. The Bureau sought but was denied an ex parte 

application for asset freeze on February 13, 2017. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, 

which the court denied on March 30, 2017. The defendants then asserted two counterclaims. 

The court dismissed those claims with prejudice on December 19, 2017. The case remains 

pending. 

In the Matter ofCitiFinancial Servicing, LLC, CitiFinancial Company, 

CitiFinancial Services, Inc., and CitiFinancial, Inc. (File No. 2017-CFPB-0004). On 

January 23, 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against four entities that made up the 

CitiFinancial Servicing business relating to their mortgage servicing practices. The Bureau found 

that CitiFinancial engaged in a number of acts or practices that violated RESPA, FCRA, and the 

CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. Specifically, the Bureau found that these 

practices included failing to consider deferment requests as requests for foreclosure relief, 

misleading consumers about the impact of deferring a payment due date, improperly charging 

for credit insurance that should have been cancelled or prematurely cancelling credit insurance, 

inaccurately reporting consumer information to credit reporting companies, and failing to 

timely investigate credit reporting disputes. The Bureau's order requires CitiFinancial Services 

to refund approximately $4-4 million in improper charges and pay a civil penalty of $4.4 

million. 

In the Matter ofCitiMortgage, Inc. (File No. 2017-CFPB-ooos). On January 23, 2017, the 

Bureau issued a consent order against CitiMortgage finding that it violated RESP A and the 

CFP A's prohibition against deceptive acts or practices. Under federal mortgage rules, if a 

borrower does not submit all the required documentation with the initial application for loss 

mitigation, servicers must let the borrowers know what additional documents are required. The 

Bureau found CitiMortgage sent some borrowers seeking assistance a letter demanding dozens 

of documents and forms that had no bearing on the application or that the consumer had 

32 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
121 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


already provided, and that many of these documents had nothing to do with a borrower's 

financial circumstances and was not needed to complete the application. The Bureau's order 

requires CitiMortgage to pay an estimated $17 million in restitution and pay a civil penalty of $3 

million. 

In the Matter of Works & Lentz, Inc.; Works & Lentz of Tulsa, Inc.; and Harry A. 

Lentz, Jr. (File No. 2017-CFPB-0003) (not a credit union or depository institution). On 

January 9, 2017, the Bureau issued a consent order against two medical debt collection law 

firms and their president finding that they misrepresented that their letters and calls were from 

attorneys attempting to collect on a debt when no attorney had yet reviewed the account. The 

Bureau also found that the law firms failed to ensure the accuracy of the consumer information 

they furnished to credit reporting companies and used improperly notarized affidavits in 

lawsuits filed against consumers. The Bureau's order requires defendants to provide $577,135 in 

restitution, correct their business practices, and pay a $78,800 penalty. 

In the Matter of Trans Union Interactive, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, and Trans Union 

(File No. 2017-CFPB-0002) (not a credit union or depository institution). On January 3, 2017, 

the Bureau issued a consent order against Trans Union and its subsidiaries finding that it 

deceived consumers about the usefulness and value of the credit scores it sold to consumers. The 

Bureau also found that the company deceived consumers into enrolling in costly subscription 

programs for credit-related products. The Bureau's order requires Trans Union to represent 

accurately the value of the credit scores it provides and the cost of obtaining those credit scores 

and other services, and to pay $13.9 million in restitution and a $3 million civil penalty. 

In the Matter of Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Consumer Services LLC (File No. 2017-

CFPB-oom) (not a credit union or depository institution). On .January 3, 2017, the Bureau 

issued a consent order against Equifax, Inc., and its subsidiaries finding that it deceived 

consumers about the value of the credit scores it sold to consumers. The Bureau also found that 

the company deceived consumers into enrolling in costly subscription programs for creditrelated products and violated Regulation V by advertising on AnnualCreditReport.com before 

consumers had obtained their report. The Bureau's order requires Equifax to represent 

accurately the value of the credit scores it provides and the cost of obtaining those credit scores 

and other services, and to pay $3.8 million in restitution and a $2.5 million civil money penalty. 

In the Matter of Military Credit Services, LLC (File No. 2016-CFPB-0029) (not a credit 

union or depository institution). On December 20, 2016, the Bureau issued a consent order 

against Military Credit Services, LLC (MCS) finding that MCS entered into revolving-credit 

agreements with ACH pre-authorization provisions that were not clear and readily 

33 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
122 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


understandable to consumers, in violation of EFTA and Regulation E, and made improper APR 

disclosures, in violation ofTILA and Regulation Z. The Bureau's order requires the company to 

ensure that its contracts comply with the law. It also required the company to pay a $200,000 

civil penalty and hire an independent consultant to review its practices. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Spotsylvania Gold & Pawn, Inc. (E. D. 

Va. No. 3:16-cv-988); Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Fredericksburg Gold 

& Pawn, Inc. (E. D. Va. No. 3:16-cv-987); Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. 

Pawn U.S.A, Inc. (E.D. Va. No. 1:16-cv-01566); Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau v. A to Z Pawn, Inc. (E.D. Va. No. 1:16-cv-1567). On December 19, 2016, the Bureau 

filed complaints against four Virginia pawnbrokers alleging that they deceived consumers about 

the actual annual costs of their loans. Specifically, the Bureau alleged that the four companies 

broke the law by misstating the APR associated with pawn loans. The court entered stipulated 

final judgments in all four proceedings between February 22, 2017 and July 18, 2017. Those 

orders permanently restrain Spotsylvania Gold & Pawn, Fredericksburg Gold & Pawn, Pawn 

U.S.A., and A to Z Pawn from disclosing an inaccurate APR or failing to provide required 

disclosures. Additionally, the orders required Spotsylvania Gold & Pawn to pay $20,209 as 

disgorgement and a $7,500 civil penalty; Fredericksburg Gold & Pawn to pay $24,570 as 

disgorgement and a $5,000 civil penalty; Pawn U.S.A. to pay $36,;367 as disgorgement and a 

$10,000 civil penalty; and A to Z Pawn to pay a $3,500 civil penalty. 

In the Matter ofMoneytree, Inc. (File No. 2016-CFPB-0028) (not a credit union or 

depository institution). On December 16, 2016, the Bureau issued a consent order against 

Moneytree, Inc., a financial services company that offers payday loans and check-cashing 

services, finding that it misled consumers with deceptive online advertisements and collection 

letters. The Bureau also found that the company made unauthorized electronic transfers from 

consumers' bank accounts. The Bureau's order requires the company to cease its illegal conduct, 

provide $255,000 in restitution, and pay a civil penalty of $250,000. 

In the Matter of Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. djbja Security 1 Lending (File 

No. 2016-CFPB-0027); In the Matter of American Advisors Group (File No. 2016-CFPB0026); In the Matter of Aegean Financial djbja Aegean Financial, Inc., Reverse 

Mortgage Professionals, Jubilados Financial, Newport Lending Reverse 

Mortgage, Promise Land Lending, Reverse Financial Group, and Reverse 

Mortgage Iriformation Center (File No. 2016-CFPB-0025) (not a credit union or 

depository institution). On December 7, 2016, the Bureau issued consent orders against three 

reverse mortgage companies finding that they made deceptive advertisements. The Bureau's 

34 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
123 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


order requires American Advisors Group, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, and Aegean Financial to 

cease their deceptive advertising practices, make clear and prominent disclosures in their 

reverse mortgage advertisements and implement a system to ensure they are following all laws. 

The consent orders also require American Advisors Group to pay a civil penalty of $400,ooo, 

Reverse Mortgage Solutions to pay a penalty of $325,000, and Aegean Financial to pay a penalty 

of$65,000. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Access Funding, LLC, Access Holding, 

LLC, Reliance Funding, LLC, Lee Jundanian, Raffi Boghosian, Michael 

Borkowski, and Charles Smith (D. Md. No. 1:16-cv-03759). On November 21, 2016, the 

Bureau filed a complaint against Access Funding, LLC, Access Holding, LLC, Reliance Funding, 

LLC, three of the companies' principals-Lee Jundanian, Raffi Boghosian, and Michael 

Borkowski-and a Maryland attorney, Charles Smith, alleging that they deceptively induced 

individuals to enter into settlement funding agreements, in which the individuals agreed to 

receive an immediate lump sum payment in exchange for significantly higher future settlement 

payments. The Bureau also alleges that the companies and their principals steered victims to 

receive "independent advice" from Smith, who was paid directly by Access Funding and 

indicated to consumers that the transactions required very little scrutiny. The Bureau further 

alleges that Access Funding advanced money to some consumers and represented to those 

consumers that the advances obligated them to go forward with transactions even if they 

realized that the transactions were not in their best interests. On September 13, 2017, the court 

granted defendants' motions to dismiss counts I-IV, arising out of Smith's conduct, on the 

grounds that he had attorney-client relationships with the consumers in question. The court 

denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the Bureau's claim relating to the advances Access 

Funding offered consumers. The court granted the Bureau's motion to file an amended 

complaint alleging Smith did not have attorney-client relationships with the consumers in 

question. Defendants again moved to dismiss. The motion remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. B&B Pawnbrokers (E. D. Va. No. 3:16-cv887). On November 3, 2016, the Bureau filed a complaint against B&B Pawnbrokers, Inc. 

alleging that it deceived consumers about the actual annual cost of its loans. Specifically, the 

Bureau alleged that B&B Pawnbrokers misstated the charges associated with pawn loans. On 

March 1, 2017, the court entered a stipulated final judgment and order. The order required the 

company to disgorge $29,000, pay a $5,000 civil penalty, and halt its illegal practices. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Northern Resolution Group (W.D.N.Y. 

No. 1:16-cv-oo88o). On November 2, 2016, the Bureau, in partnership with the New York 

35 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
124 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Attorney General, filed a complaint alleging that Douglas MacKinnon and Mark Gray operate a 

network of companies that harass, threaten, and deceive consumers across the nation into 

paying inflated debts or amounts they may not owe. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, 

restitution, and the imposition of penalties against the companies and partners. The defendants 

asserted counterclaims against the Bureau and New York, which the court dismissed on January 

8, 2018. The case remains pending. 

In the Matter of Navy Federal Credit Union (File No. 2016-CFPB-0024). On October 11, 

2016, the Bureau issued a consent order against Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) finding that 

it made deceptive representations to its members in connection with its debt collection 

activities. Specifically, the Bureau found that the credit union, whose members include active 

duty military, retired servicemembers, and their families, made deceptive representations about 

its intention to take legal action against members with delinquent accounts, its intention to 

contact members' military chains of command about consumer debts, and the effect of 

delinquency or repayment on members' credit ratings. The Bureau also found that the credit 

union unfairly restricted account access when members had an overdrawn deposit account or 

delinquent credit account. The Bureau's order requires NFCU to stop: any misleading, false, or 

unsubstantiated threats to contact members' commanding officers; initiation of any improper 

legal action; misrepresentations about the credit consequences of falling behind on a credit 

union loan; and unfairly restricting members' access to all of their accounts if they are 

delinquent on one. The order also requires the credit union to pay roughly $23 million in 

restitution and a civil penalty of $5.5 million. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Prime Marketing Holdings, LLC, 

djbjaj Park View Credit, National Credit Advisors, and Credit Experts (C.D. Cal. 

No. 2:16-cv-7111). On September 22, 2016, the Bureau filed a complaint against the credit repair 

company Prime Marketing Holdings, LLC (PMII), alleging it charged consumers illegal advance 

fees and misrepresented the cost and effectiveness of its services and the nature of its moneyback guarantee. On August 31, 2017, the court entered a stipulated final judgment and order. 

The final judgment permanently bans PMH from doing business in the credit repair industry 

and orders it to pay a $150,000 civil penalty. 

In the Matter of Auto Cash Leasing, LLC (File No. 2016-CFPB-0017); Interstate 

Lending, LLC (File No. 2016-CFPB-0018); Oasis Title Loans, LLC (File No. 2016-CFPBootg); Phoenix Title Loans, LLC (File No. 2016-CFPB-0020); Presto Auto Loans, Inc. 

(File No. 2016-CFPB-0021) (not a credit union or depository institution). On September 20, 

2016, the Bureau filed notices of charges against five title lenders operating in Arizona-Auto 

36 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
125 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Cash Leasing, LLC; Interstate Lending, LLC; Oasis Title Loans, LLC; Phoenix Title Loans, LLC; 

and Presto Auto Loans, Inc.-alleging they failed to disclose the APR in online advertisements 

about title loans. Specifically, the Bureau alleged that the companies advertised a periodic 

interest rate for their loans without listing the corresponding annual percentage rate. The 

Bureau issued consent orders against all five companies between November 1, 2016 and March 

13,2017. The orders prohibit Auto Cash Leasing, Interstate Lending, Oasis Title Loans, Presto 

Auto Loans, and Phoenix Title Loans from advertising a periodic rate of interest unless the 

advertisement also discloses the corresponding APR. The orders also require Auto Cash Leasing 

to pay a civil money penalty of $10,000, Interstate Lending to pay a civil money penalty of 

$4,000, Oasis Title Loans to pay a civil money penalty of $20,000, Presto Auto Loans to pay a 

civil money penalty of $125,000, and Phoenix Title Loans to pay a civil money penalty of 

$40,000. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Intercept Corporation, Bryan Smith, 

and Craig Dresser (D.N.D. No. 3:16-cv-144). On .June 6, 2016, the Bureau filed a complaint 

against payment processer Intercept Corporation and two of its executives, Bryan Smith and 

Craig Dresser. The Bureau alleged that the defendants engaged in unfair acts or practices by 

continuing to electronically debit consumers' accounts despite warnings that the payment 

requests were illegal or fraudulent. On August 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss. The 

court dismissed the Bureau's lawsuit without prejudice on March 17, 2017, holding the Bureau 

failed to plead sufficient detail in the complaint. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. All American Check Cashing, Inc., MidState Finance, Inc., and Michael E. Gray (S.D. Miss. No. 3:16-cv-356). On May 11, 2016, 

the Bureau filed a complaint against two companies, All American Check Cashing, Inc. and MidState Finance, Inc. that offer check-cashing services and payday loans, and their president and 

sole owner, Michael Gray. The Bureau alleges that All American tried to keep consumers from 

learning how much they would be charged to cash a check and used deceptive tactics to stop 

consumers from backing out of transactions. The Bureau also alleges that All American made 

deceptive statements about the benefits of its high-cost payday loans and failed to provide 

refunds after consumers made overpayments on their loans. The Bureau's lawsuit seeks 

injunctive relief, restitution, and the imposition of a civil money penalty. On July 15, 2016, the 

court denied defendants' motion for a more definite statement. The defendants moved for 

judgment on the pleadings on May 24, 2017, and the court denied that motion on March 21, 

2018. The Bureau moved for summary judgment on August 4, 2017, and the court has not yet 

ruled on that motion. The case remains pending. 

37 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
126 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. D and D Marketing, Inc., djbja 

T3Leads, Grigor Demirchyan, and Marina Demirchyan (C. D. Cal. No. 2:15-cv-g6g2); 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Dmitry Fomichev (C. D. Cal. No. 2:16-cv2724); and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Davit Gasparyan aka David 

Gasparyan (C. D. Cal. No. 2:16-cv-2725). On December 17, 2015, the Bureau filed a complaint 

against T3Leads and its current executives, Grigor Demirchyan and Marina Demirchyan, 

alleging that T3 engaged in unfair and abusive acts and practices in the sale of consumer-loan 

applications to small-dollar lenders and others acting unlawfully, and in operating a loanapplication network that prevented consumers from understanding the material risks, costs, or 

conditions of their loans, and further alleging that the Demirchyans substantially assisted those 

acts and practices. On April21, 2016, the Bureau filed two separate but related complaints 

against the company's past executives-Dmitry Fomichev and Davit Gasparyan-alleging that 

they substantially assisted T3's violations. The complaints seek monetary relief, injunctive relief, 

and penalties. On November 17, 2016, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss but 

found the Bureau unconstitutionally structured. The Ninth Circuit granted interlocutory appeal 

on that issue. That issue has not been decided. On September 8, 2017, the district court entered 

a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants, Davit Gasparyan. The order 

imposed injunctive relief and required Gasparyan to pay a $250,000 penalty. The case remains 

pending in the district court against the remaining defendants. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Anthony J. Albanese, Acting 

Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York v. Pension 

Funding, LLC; Pension Income, LLC; Steven Covey; Edwin Lichtig; and Rex 

Hofelter (C. D. Cal. No. 8:15-cv-1329). On August 20, 2015, the Bureau and the New York 

Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) filed a complaint against two companies, Pension 

Funding, LLC and Pension Income, LLC, and three of the companies' individual managers, 

alleging that they deceived consumers about the costs and risks oftheir pension-advance loans. 

The Bureau and NYDFS alleged that from 2011 until about December 2014, Pension Funding 

and Pension Income offered consumers lump-sum loan payments in exchange for the 

consumers agreeing to redirect all or part of their pension payments to the companies for eight 

years. The Bureau and NYDFS also alleged that the individual defendants, Steven Covey, Edwin 

Lichtig, and Rex Hofelter, designed and marketed these loans and were responsible for the 

companies' operations. The Bureau and NYDFS alleged that all of the defendants violated the 

CFPA's prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices. On January 8, 2016, 

the court appointed a receiver over defendants Pension Funding and Pension Income. The 

receiver's responsibilities include taking control of all funds and assets of the companies and 

completing an accounting of all pension-advance transactions that are the subject of the action. 

38 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
127 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


On February 10, 2016, the court entered a stipulated final judgment and order as to two of the 

individual defendants, Lichtig and Hofelter. The order imposes bans on these individuals' 

participation in pension-advance transactions and requires them to pay money to the 

receivership estate. On July 11, 2016, the court granted a default judgment against the final 

individual defendant, Covey, who did not appear in the case. The court's order imposes a ban 

and requires Covey to pay disgorgement of approximately $580,000. The court-appointed 

receiver's work with respect to the companies is ongoing. 

In the Matter of Integrity Advance, LLC and James R. Carnes (File No. 2015-CFPB0029). On November 18, 2015, the Bureau filed a notice of charges against an online lender, 

Integrity Advance, LLC, and its CEO, ,James R. Carnes, alleging they deceived consumers about 

the cost of short-term loans. The Bureau alleges that the company's contracts did not disclose 

the costs consumers would pay under the default terms of the contracts. The Bureau also alleges 

that the company unfairly used remotely created checks to debit consumers' bank accounts even 

after the consumers' revoked authorization for automatic withdrawals. The Bureau is seeking 

injunctive relief, restitution, and the imposition of a civil money penalty. On September 27, 

2016, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision finding liability and 

recommending injunctive and monetary relief. The Recommended Decision was appealed to the 

Director, but further activity on that appeal was held in abeyance pending a decision in PHH 

Corp. v. CFPB, No. 15-1177 (D.C. Cir.). The case remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Global Financial Support, Inc., d/b/a 

Student Financial Resource Center, djbja College Financial Advisory; and 

Armond Aria ajkjaArmondAmir Aria, individually, and as owner and CEO of 

Global Financial Support, Inc. (S.D. Cal. No. 3:15-cv-2440 ). On October 29, 2015, the 

Bureau filed a complaint alleging that Global Financial Support, Inc., which operates under the 

names Student Financial Resource Center and College Financial Advisory, issued marketing 

letters instructing students to fill out a form and pay a fee in exchange for the company 

conducting extensive searches to target or match them with individualized financial aid 

opportunities. The Bureau alleges that consumers who paid the fee received nothing or a generic 

booklet that failed to provide individualized advice. The Bureau also alleges that the defendants 

misrepresented their affiliation with government and university financial aid offices and 

pressured consumers to enroll through deceptive statements. The complaint seeks injunctive 

relief, restitution, and the imposition of a civil money penalty. This matter has been stayed since 

May 17, 2016 based on an ongoing criminal prosecution of one of the defendants. The case 

remains pending. 

39 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
128 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Orion Processing, LLC djbja World 

Law Processing, Wld Credit Repair, and World Law Debt; Family Capital 

Investment & Management, LLC afkfa FCIAM Property Management, et al. (S.D. 

Fla. No. 1:15-cv-23070). On August 17, 2015, the Bureau filed a complaint against the World Law 

Group alleging it violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and the CFPA by running a debt 

relief operation that charged consumers illegal upfront fees, falsely promised a team of attorneys 

to help negotiate debt settlements with creditors, failed to provide legal representation, and 

rarely settled consumers' debts. The Bureau alleged that World Law collected fees from 

consumers before providing any debt-relief services. On August 1, 2016, the court entered a 

default judgment against the World Law corporate defendants and FCIAM, and a stipulated 

final judgment against two of the individuals, who admitted violations of the Telemarketing 

Sales Rule. The court entered a default judgment against Bradley Haskins on November 29, 

2016, and a stipulated final judgment and order against Orion Processing, LLC on March 22, 

2017. The orders permanently ban the defendants from participating in telemarketing of any 

consumer financial product or service, or from selling, advertising, or offering debt relief 

products. The court also ordered the defendants to pay nearly $107 million in consumer redress, 

ordered Haskins, FCIAM, and the World Law corporate defendants to pay a civil money penalty 

of $40 million, and ordered Orion to pay a $20 million civil money penalty. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Gordon, et al. (C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-6147). 

On July 18, 2012, the Bureau filed a complaint against a nationwide mortgage relief operation 

alleging the defendants took advantage of financially distressed homeowners by falsely 

promising to help them obtain loan modifications and illegally charging them advance fees 

ranging from $2,500 to $4,500. On February 1, 2013, the court entered a stipulated final 

judgment and order for permanent injunction as to defendants Abraham Michael Pessar, 

Division One Investment and Loan, Inc., and Processing Division, LLC. On June 26, 2013, the 

court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bureau against defendants Chance Edward 

Gordon and the Gordon Law Firm, P.C., finding that those defendants violated the Dodd-Frank 

Act by falsely representing: (1) that consumers would obtain mortgage loan modifications that 

substantially reduced their mortgage payments or interest rates and (2) that defendants were 

affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by the U.S. government, among other things. The court 

also found iliat Gordon violated Regulation 0 by charging up-front payments, failing to make 

required disclosures, wrongly directing consumers not to contact lenders, and misrepresenting 

material aspects of defendants' services. After the order entering summary judgment against 

Gordon was largely affirmed on appeal, the court awarded an $8,6o6,28o.86 judgment for 

equitable monetary relief against Gordon on December 19, 2016. Gordon's petition for certiorari 

in the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on June 26, 2017. 

40 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
129 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Borders & Borders, PLC, et al. (W.D. Ky. 

No. 3:13-cv-1047). On October 24, 2013, the Bureau filed a complaint alleging that Borders & 

Borders, a law firm specializing in real estate closings, violated RESPA by paying kickbacks to 

local real estate and mortgage brokers in exchange for referrals of settlement service business to 

the defendants. The Bureau seeks injunctive and other equitable relief. On February 12, 2015, 

the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleading, but on July 13, 2017, 

granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the arrangement qualified as an 

affiliated business relationship under section 8(c)(4) ofRESPA, and that the arrangement was 

independently allowed under section 8(c)(2) ofRESPA. On August 10,2017, the Bureau moved 

for reconsideration, and the court has not yet ruled. The case remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. NDG Financial Corp., et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 

15-cv-5211). On July 6, 2015, the Bureau filed a complaint against the NDG Financial 

Corporation and nine of its affiliates alleging it engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive 

practices relating to its payday lending enterprise. The Bureau alleges that the enterprise, which 

has companies located in Canada and Malta, originated, serviced, and collected payday loans 

that were void under state law, represented that U.S. federal and state laws did not apply to the 

Defendants or the payday loans, and used unfair and deceptive tactics to secure repayment, all 

in violation of the CFPA. On December 2, 2016, the court denied the defendants' motions to 

dismiss. On December 6, 2017, the clerk entered default against the Maltese defendants. On 

February 5, 2018, the court voluntarily dismissed the former owners and their holding 

corporations as defendants and/or relief defendants. The Bureau has moved for terminating 

sanctions against the remaining defendants, and the case remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Universal Debt & Payment Solutions, 

LLC, et al. (N.D. Ga. No. 1:15-cv-859). On March 26, 2015, the Bureau filed a complaint 

against a group of seven debt collection agencies, six individual debt collectors, four payment 

processors, and a telephone marketing service provider alleging unlawful conduct related to a 

phantom debt collection operation. Phantom debt is debt consumers do not actually owe or debt 

that is not payable to those attempting to collect it. The Bureau alleges that the individuals, 

acting through a network of corporate entities, used threats and harassment to collect 

"phantom" debt from consumers. The Bureau alleges the defendants violated the FDCPA and 

the CFPA's prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and provided substantial 

assistance to unfair or deceptive conduct. The Bureau is seeking permanent injunctive relief, 

restitution, and the imposition of a civil money penalty. On April 7, 2015, the Bureau obtained a 

preliminary injunction against the debt collectors that froze their assets and enjoined their 

unlawful conduct. In September 1, 2015, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On 

41 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FAll2017 
130 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


August 25, 2017, the court dismissed the Bureau's claims against the payment processors as a 

discovery sanction against the Bureau. On November 15, 2017, the Bureau, and remaining 

defendants both moved for summary judgment. The court has not yet ruled, and the case 

remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Richard F. Moseley, Sr., et al. (W.D. Mo. 

No. 4:14-cv-789). On September 8, 2014, the Bureau filed a complaint against a confederation of 

online payday lenders known as the Hydra Group, its principals, and affiliates, alleging that they 

used a maze of interrelated entities to make unauthorized and otherwise illegal loans to 

consumers. The Bureau alleged that the defendants' practices violate the CFPA, TILA, and 

EFTA. On September 9, 2014, the court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order against 

the defendants, ordering them to halt lending operations. The court also placed the companies 

in temporary receivership, appointed a receiver, granted the Bureau immediate access to the 

defendants' business premises, and froze their assets. On October 3, 2014, the court entered a 

stipulated preliminary injunction against the defendants pending final judgment in the case. On 

March 4, 2016, the court stayed the Bureau's case until criminal proceedings against Moseley, 

Sr. are resolved. The case remains pending. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. The Mortgage Law Group, LLP, djbja 

The Law Firm of Macey, Aleman & Seams; Consumer First Legal Group, LLC; 

Thomas G. Macey; Jeffrey J. Aleman; Jason E. Seams; and Harold E. Stafford 

(W.D. Wis. No. 3:14-cv-513). On July 22, 2014, the Bureau filed a lawsuit in federal district court 

against The Mortgage Law Group, LLP (TMLG), the Consumer First Legal Group, LLC, and 

attorneys Thomas Macey, Jeffrey Aleman, .Jason Seams, and Harold Stafford. The Bureau 

alleges that the defendants violated Regulation 0, formerly known as the Mortgage Assistance 

Relief Services (MARS) Rule, by taking payments from consumers for mortgage modifications 

before the consumers signed a mortgage modification agreement from their lender, by failing to 

make required disclosures, by wrongly directing consumers not to contact lenders, and by 

making deceptive statements to consumers when providing mortgage assistance relief services. 

On June 21, 2017, the district court entered a stipulated judgment against the bankruptcy estate 

ofTMLG, which sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The court enjoined TMLG from operating, and 

ordered TMLG to pay $18,331,737 in redress and $20,815,000 in civil money penalties. A trial 

was held with the remaining defendants on Apri124, 2017 through Apri128, 2017, and the court 

has not yet issued findings offact or conclusions oflaw. The case against the remaining 

defendants is ongoing. 

42 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
131 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. liT Educational Services, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 

No. 1:14-cv-292). On January 6, 2014, the Bureau filed a lawsuit in federal district court against 

for-profit college chain ITT Educational Services, Inc. The Bureau alleges that ITT encouraged 

new students to enroll by providing them funding for the tuition gap that was not covered by 

federal student loan programs with a zero-interest loan called "Temporary Credit." This loan 

typically had to be paid in full at the end of the student's first academic year. The Bureau alleges 

that ITT knew from the outset that many students would not be able to repay their Temporary 

Credit balances or fund their second-year tuition gap and that ITT illegally pushed its students 

into repaying their Temporary Credit and funding their second-year tuition gaps through highcost private student loan programs, on which ITT knew students were likely to default. In 

September of 2016, ITT closed all of its schools and filed for bankruptcy. On September 8, 2017, 

the court entered an order administratively closing the case without prejudice to the right of 

either party to move to reopen it within sixty days of the approval of a settlement by the 

Bankruptcy Court overseeing ITT's Chapter 7 case. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. CashCall, Inc., et al. (C. D. CaL No. 15-cv7522). On December 16, 2013, the Bureau filed a complaint against online loan servicer Cash Call 

Inc., its owner, a subsidiary, and an affiliate, alleging that they violated the CFPA's prohibition 

against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices by collecting and attempting to collect 

consumer-installment loans that were void or partially nullified because they violated either 

state caps on interest rates or state licensing requirements for lenders. The Bureau alleged that 

Cash Call serviced loans it made in the name of an entity, Western Sky, which was located on the 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's land and which purported to make loans exempt from state and 

federal law. On August 31, 2016, the court granted the Bureau's motion for partial summary 

judgment, concluding that Cash Call was the true lender on the Western Sky loans, that the laws 

of consumers' home states applied, and that the defendants engaged in deceptive acts or 

practices by demanding payment of amounts that consumers did not actually owe. A trial was 

held from October 17 to 18, 2017 on the issue of appropriate relief. On January 19, 2018, the 

court issued findings of fact and conclusions oflaw imposing a $10.28 million civil penalty but 

denying the Bureau's request for restitution and an injunction. On January 26, 2018, the court 

entered judgment ordering the defendants to pay the civil penalty. 

43 SEMI·ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
132 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


6. Actions taken regarding 

rules, orders, and 

supervisory actions with 

respect to covered persons 

which are not credit unions 

or depository institutions 

The Bureau's Supervisory Highlights publications provide general information about the 

Bureau's supervisory activities at banks and nonbanks without identifYing specific companies. 

The Bureau published four issues of Supervisory Highlights between October 1, 2016 and 

September 30, 2017.7° 

All public enforcement actions are listed in Section 5· Those actions taken with respect to 

covered persons which are not credit unions or depository institutions arc noted within the 

summary of the action. 

7° Fall 2017, https://s3.arnazoniJW.?.com/filrs.con~umezlln<)n.q~~gllv}f/docunwntsj201709_dpb_.Snpe~n-~sqryHighlights_Issue-16.pdf; 

Spring 2017, https: I j S3.amazonaws.rom/fil~s:CQI1.S~l m.erfinal)ee,govjfj doqHll~D t~J ~.9J7D4 _r_fp}?~~v_pg:ry]~m'YHighlights_lssue-ts.pdf; 

Fall2016, ht;p;/jfije.,.c()nsumerjjnan_ce,go_v/f/docuTf1.Clll~/Supervisory_Highlight§_lssue_J3_Final_to.:JL16.pdf; 

Consumer Reporting Special Edition, 

https; I fw»~v .cqnsumerfinance .gov I dQ.CtJ.tn~nt$/.277.4/'lcO 1703_ cfp b __ S up~rvisorY:-.H igh}igh.ts-Consum€1r-R9pq~t~pgSpeciai-Editi(}n.pdf, 

44 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
133 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


7. Assessment of significant 

actions by State attorneys 

general or State regulators 

relating to Federal consumer 

financial law 

For purposes of the section 1016(c)(7) reporting requirement, the Bureau determined that any 

actions asserting claims pursuant to section 1042 of the Dodd-Frank Act are "significant." The 

Bureau is aware of the following State Attorney General actions that were initiated during the 

reporting period and that asserted Dodd-Frank Act claims. The reporting period for this 

information is April!, 2017, through September 30, 2017. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts u. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance 

Agency, djbjaj FedLoan Servicing, No. 1784-cv-2682 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2017). 

On August 23, 2017, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed suit in the Massachusetts' 

Superior Court against Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), which also 

does business as FedLoan Servicing. Massachusetts alleged that PHEAA violated the 

Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, M.G.L.A. c. 93A, § 2(a), by engaging in unfair and 

deceptive acts and practices and violating Massachusetts' Debt Collection Regulations, 940 

C.M.R. 7.07(16). In addition, Massachusetts alleged that PHEAA violated the Consumer 

Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531, by engaging in unfair acts and practices. 

Office of the Attorney General, the State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs, 

and Office of Financial Regulation, the State of Florida, Division of Consumer 

Finance, u. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation, Ocwen 

Mortgage Servicing, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation, and Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, No. 9:17-cv-80496 (S.D. Fla. 

45 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
134 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Apr. 20, 2017). On April20, 2017, the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Financial 

Regulation for Florida filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida against Ocwcn Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC (collectively referred to as "Ocwen"). Florida alleged that Ocwen violated the 

Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531, by violating section 6(g) of the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. 2605(g), and sections 1024.17, 1024.34, and 

1024-41 of RESPA's implementing regulation, Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1024. In addition, the 

Florida Attorney General alleged that Ocwen violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 501.204(1), by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices. The 

Florida Office of Financial Regulation alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, violated sections 

494.00255 and 494.0063 of the Florida Statutes. 

46 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
135 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


8. Analysis of the efforts of the 

Bureau to fulfill the fair 

lending mission of the 

Bureau 

On Apri114, 2017, the Bureau published its fifth report to Congress'' on the fair lending work of 

the Bureau. The April report provided an overview ofthe Bureau's risk-based fair lending 

prioritization process; supervision tools; recent public enforcement actions; rulemaking and 

related guidance; interagency coordination efforts and reporting; and outreach activities during 

calendar year 20I6.72 This Semi-Annual Report update is focused on highlights from the 

Bureau's fair lending enforcement73 and rulemaking74 activities from October 1, 2016, through 

September 30, 2017, and continued efforts to fulfill the fair lending mission of the Bureau, 

through, for example, supervision, interagency coordination, and outreach from April I, 2017, 

through September 30, 2017.7s 

7' Dodd-Frank Act section 1013(c)(2)(D). 

72 See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fair Lending Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(Apr. 14, 2017), https:/ j\\r\\:._Y.C.Ql1$Ul11g.r.fii).aHce.gq\"jdat;l-l:esear~hjre?ea.rd1:repm:ts/t~lir-lendi.lJK:rt])"oti.-2_016. 

73 Dodd-Frank Act section 10I6(c)(s). 

74 Dodd-Frank Act section 1016(c)(3). 

75 Dodd-Frank Act section 1016(c)(8). 

47 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
136 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


8.1 Fair lending supervision 

The Bureau's Fair Lending Supervision program assesses compliance with Federal fair lending 

consumer financial laws and regulations at banks and non banks over which the Bureau has 

supervisory authority. As a result of the Bureau's efforts to fulfill its fair lending mission in this 

reporting period, the Bureau's Fair Lending Supervision program initiated 11 supervisory events 

at financial services institutions under the Bureau's jurisdiction to determine compliance with 

Federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for 

both individuals and communities, including ECOA and HMDA. 

For exam reports issued by Fair Lending Supervision during the reporting period, the most 

frequently cited violations of Regulation B were: 

Section 1002.9(a)(1); (a)(2); (b); and (g): Failure to timely notify an applicant when an 

application is denied; failure to provide sufficient information in an adverse action 

notification, including the specific reasons the application was denied; and failure to 

provide an adverse action notification when an application is made on behalf of an 

applicant through a third party to more than one creditor; 

Section 1002.12(b)(1): Failure to retain in original form or copy for 25 months (12 

months for business credit) any application, monitoring information or other 

information used in evaluating an application; and 

Section 1002.14(a): Failure to routinely provide a copy of an appraisal report to an 

applicant for credit secured by a lien on a dwelling. 

In the current reporting period, the Bureau issued a number of matters requiring attention 

(MRAs) or memoranda of understanding (MOU) items that was similar to the number issued in 

the prior reporting period. Those items were issued across a number of fair lending supervisory 

events that was similar to the number of fair lending supervisory events from the prior period. 

MRAs and MOUs direct entities to take corrective actions and are monitored by the Bureau 

through follow-up supervisory events. In the current period, however, the Bureau cleared a 

higher number of MRAs or MOU items from past supervisory events. 

48 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
137 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


8.2 Fair lending enforcement76 

The Bureau has the statutory authority to bring enforcement actions pursuant to HMDA and 

ECOA. In this regard, the Bureau has the authority to engage in research, conduct 

investigations, file administrative complaints, hold hearings, and adjudicate claims through the 

Bureau's administrative enforcement process. The Bureau also has independent litigating 

authority and can file cases in federal court alleging violations offair lending laws under the 

Bureau's jurisdiction. Like other federal bank regulators, the Bureau is required to refer matters 

to DOJ when it has reason to believe that a creditor has engaged in a pattern or practice of 

lending discrimination. 

Over the past year, the Bureau announced two fair lending public enforcement actions involving 

HMDA reporting and credit cards. First, as described in Section 5 of this Report, on March 15, 

2017, the Bureau resolved an enforcement action against Nationstar Mortgage LLC for violating 

HMDA by consistently failing to report accurate data about mortgage transactions for 2012 

through 2014. This matter was discussed in more detail in the Bureau's Spring 2017 SemiAnnual Report.77 

Second, as described in Section 5 of this Report, on August 23,2017, the Bureau took action 

against American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB (collectively 

referred to as American Express), for violating ECOA by discriminating against consumers in 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories by providing them with credit and 

charge card terms that were inferior to those available in the so U.S. states. 

The Bureau also continues to administer prior fair lending enforcement actions. On December 

19, 2013, working in close coordination with the DOJ, the Bureau ordered Ally Financial Inc. 

and Ally Bank (Ally) to pay $8o million in damages to harmed African-American, Hispanic, and 

Asian and/or Pacific Islander borrowers. In addition, Ally paid approximately $38.9 million in 

September 2015, $51.5 million in May 2016, and an additional $48.8 million in April 2017, the 

7

6 Section I0!6(c)(S) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to include in the semi-annual report public 

enforcement actions the Bureau was a party to during the preceding year, which is October 1, 2016, through 

September 30, 2017, for this report. 

77 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Semi-Annual Report Spring 2017, at 103-05 (June 2017), 

https:/ j \H'(\Y :CQTI-?Umt;rfin.ance.gqy Ida ta -resca rchj re~em::cb-rE:'ports/ sg.n~i ~ a.n 11 ual..- r~P.{!rt -spri 11g-2017. 

49 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
138 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


final year of the order, to consumers who Ally determined were both eligible and overcharged on 

auto loans issued during 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. 

Finally, during this reporting period78 and pursuant to section 706(g) of ECOA, the Bureau also 

referred five matters to the DOJ with regard to discrimination in mortgage lending on the basis 

of receipt of public assistance income; and discrimination in auto finance on the bases of 

national origin, race, and receipt of public assistance income. As a result of the Bureau's public 

enforcement actions enforcing Federal fair lending laws, including ECOA and HMDA, 

approximately $97 million in monetary payments were made, consisting of remediation to 

harmed consumers and payments to the Bureau's Civil Penalty Fund.79 

8.3 Fair lending outreach 

The Bureau is committed to hearing from and communicating directly with stakeholders on 

compliance and education relating to fair lending.80 Outreach is accomplished through issuance 

of Reports to Congress, Interagency Statements, Supervisory Highlights, Compliance Bulletins, 

letters and blog posts, as well as through the delivery of speeches, meetings, and presentations 

addressing fair lending and access to credit matters. During the reporting period, Fair Lending 

staff participated in more than 30 events where they worked directly with stakeholders to 

educate them about fair lending compliance and access to credit issues, heard stakeholder views 

on Fair Lending's work to inform the Bureau, or provided speeches on fair lending topics. 

8.4 Interagency coordination 

The Bureau's fair lending activity involves regular coordination with other federal and state 

78 October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017. 

79 Figure represent estimates of monetary relief for consumers ordered or required by the Bureau or a court as a result 

of enforcement actions on fair lending matters between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2017, as well as other 

monetary pa}ments such as civil money penalties. 

so Dodd-Frank Act section 1013(c)(2)(C). 

50 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
139 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


regulatory and enforcement partners. 8' During the reporting period, Fair Lending continued to 

lead the Bureau's fair lending interagency coordination and collaboration efforts by working 

with partners on the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, the Interagency Working Group 

on Fair Lending Enforcement, and the FFIEC HMDA Data Collection Subcommittee. 

8' Dodd-Frank Act section 1013(c)(2)(B). 

51 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
140 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


9. Analysis of the efforts of the 

Bureau to increase 

workforce and contracting 

diversity consistent with the 

procedures established by 

the Office of Minority and 

Women Inclusion. 

The Bureau has developed an agency-wide strategic plan (Diversity Strategic Plan) to guide the 

Bureau in its efforts to manage its diversity and inclusion goals, and objectives.82 The Bureau 

also publishes an Annual OMWI report in the spring of each year. The 2016 OMWI Annual 

report was published on March 31, 2017.83 

Rz h ttps: j / S3.3,11)a~QP'il.~\:s.:~nm/fjJes.cc:m~mmcrfi nance.gQv/f/ (Jocuments /20 ~ ~) 11_('fpb_(J iYersity-<u'ld-indusim;-

st~ateg_ic-plan-2016-~ozo.pdf. 

83 https: // s3.amazoll aws.cc;nr./ l).les.cQr.st.nnerfinance .gov / fj Qocumer).ts/ 201703_!2_fp_b _0 ~1_Wl-:;?.9} 9::<_1JIJm 9-.l.-X'?.POrl. pdf. 

52 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
141 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


9.1 Increasing workforce diversity 

As of September 30, 2017, an analysis of the Bureau's current workforce reveals the following 

key points: 

Women represent 49% of the Bureau's workforce in 2017 with no change from 2016. 

Minorities represent 39% of the Bureau workforce with a slight increase of the 

percentage of ethnic minority employees (Hispanic, Black, Asian, Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (NH/OPI), American Indian/ Alaska Native (AI/ AN) 

and employees of Two or More races) from 2016. 

The Bureau engages in the following activities to increase workforce diversity: 

9.1.1 Recruiting 

The Bureau enhances diversity by recruiting and hiring highly qualified individuals from diverse 

backgrounds to fill positions at the Bureau. During the reporting period, the Bureau: 

Participated in at least at six professional conferences and university events, with a focus on 

building relationships with diverse affinity organizations; and 

Utilized intern and professional development programs to build a robust pipeline of talent to 

meet current and emerging workforce needs. 

9.1.2 Workforce engagement 

To promote an inclusive work environment, the Bureau focuses on strong engagement with 

employees and utilizes an integrated approach to education, training, and engagement programs 

that ensures diversity and inclusion and non-discrimination concepts are part of the learning 

curriculum and work environment. 

53 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
142 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


9.2 Increasing contracting diversity 

During FY 2017,84 the Bureau awarded 30% of contract dollars to small businesses enterprises 

(SEEs), some of which are also minority-owned or woman-owned businesses (MWOBs). The 

Bureau's contracting rate to small businesses exceeds the Small Business Administration's 

recommended goal for each Federal agencies of 23% Of the 30% of SBE contracts awarded at 

the Bureau in FY 2017, 10% went to small disadvantaged businesses (minority-owned). The total 

contract dollars awarded to woman-owned small businesses during this period was 11.9%. 

In accord with the mandates in section 342(b)(2)(B), goal four in the Bureau's Diversity 

Strategic Plan describe the efforts the Bureau takes to increase contracting opportunities for 

MWOBs The OMWI office and the Office of Procurement collectively work to increase 

opportunities for participation by MWOBs. Those activities include: 

9.2.1 Outreach to contractors 

The Bureau increases opportunities for participation ofMWOBs and SEEs by: 

Creating and publishing a procurement forecast to assist contractors better understand 

upcoming business opportunities; 

Updating and distributing technical assistance guides for businesses including A Guide 

to Doing Business with the Bureau, in order to assist businesses understand the 

procurement process. These resources are also made available digitally on the Bureau 

website.ss 

Publishing the Bureau's supplier diversity policy on the Bureau website;86 and 

84 Data source is from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2017 from October 1, 2016 through 

September 30, 2017. The data are current as of October 4, 2017. FPDS data is subject to an OMB annual validation 

each .January for the previous fiscal year. 

86 http; I I filcs.co_n su_mcrfi nancc,;o>:/ f/ 2.0_1409_cfpb _sulllolier-diversity-stat emen_t . .[!d f. 

54 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU, FALL 2017 
143 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


9.3 

Participating in four national supplier diversity conferences aimed at MWOBs, and SBEs 

and providing technical assistance meetings to businesses new to government 

contracting. 

Diversity within the Bureau contractors' 

workforces 

In accord with the mandates in section 342(c)(2) ofthe Dodd-Frank Act, goal six of the Bureau's 

Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan describes the efforts the Bureau takes to determine that a 

contractor will ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and 

minorities in the contractor workforce, and as applicable, subcontractors workforce. To provide 

notice to contractors of this responsibility the Bureau developed a contract clause for any 

solicitation and contract exceeding the simple acquisition threshold, currently, $15o,ooo. The 

clause and implementing procedure fulfills the requirement of section 342(c)(3)(A) for the 

OMWI Director to make a determination about a contractor's (and, as applicable, a 

subcontractor's) good-faith efforts to include minorities and women in their workplaces. 

55 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU. FALL 2017 
144 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumers Union calls for 

nomination of permanent CFPB 

director dedicated to protecting 

consumers from financial 

abuses 

Acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney to testify before Congress after taking steps 

that weaken the Bureau's ability to ensure consumers are treated fairly 

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Mick Mulvaney, the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB), is scheduled to testify today and tomorrow before congressional 

committees after taking a number of steps in recent months to dramatically reshape the 

agency's mission and operations. In advance of the hearing, Consumers Union, the 

advocacy division of Consumer Reports, called on President Trump to nominate a 

permanent director of the CFPB dedicated to ensuring consumers are treated fairly by 

banks and other financial firms. 

"Mulvaney has undertaken a complete overhaul of the CFPB that has weakened its ability to 

stand up for consumers," said Pamela Banks, senior policy counsel for Consumers 

Union. "Instead of focusing squarely on protecting consumers, he has dropped 

investigations and enforcement actions and directed the CFPB to prioritize easing the rules 

that banks and other lenders must follow. Consumers need a CFPB director committed to 

carrying out its mission not someone intent on muzzling this critical watchdog. It's time for 

President Trump to nominate a permanent director of the CFPB so the Senate can properly 

vet the nominee, ask the tough questions and consider whether the candidate should be 

confirmed." 

When Mulvaney was a member of Congress, he co-sponsored legislation to abolish the 

CFPB and called it a "sick, sad joke." In his role as a part-time Acting Director, he has 

taken a number of troubling steps that undermine the CFPB's unique and vital consumer 

protection role. 

Under Mulvaney, the CFPB has pulled back on investigations and enforcement actions, 

including efforts to go after payday lenders charging interest rates as high as 950 

percent. He plans to delay and reconsider the CFPB's new rules that protect consumers 

who take payday and auto title loans and turned the agency's mission on its head by 

emphasizing deregulation of the financial industry as a top priority. Earlier this year, 

Mulvaney moved the Office of Fair Lending out of the Enforcement Division, raising 

concerns that the CFPB will not take aggressive action against lenders who discriminate 

against borrowers. The Trump administration has also proposed shrinking the CFPB's 
145 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


budget and putting its guaranteed funding at risk by subjecting it to the annual 

congressional appropriations process. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created by Congress following the 

devastating 2008 financial crisis that cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and 

retirement savings. It works to make sure banks, lenders, and other financial companies 

treat consumers fairly. And it's gotten results. Since it was founded, the CFPB has 

returned $12 billion to nearly 30 million consumers who've been cheated by financial 

companies and stopped abusive banking, credit card, mortgage, and student loan practices. 

Michael McCauley, mmccauley@consumer.org, 415-902-9537 (cell) or415-431-6747, 

ext. 7606 or David Butler, dbutler@consumer.org, 202-462-6262 
146 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


U.S. PIRG STATEMENT FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

11 Apri12018 

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling 

Chairman 

Committee on Financial Services 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2129 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Maxine Waters 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Financial Services 

U.S. House of Representatives 

4340 Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. FOB 

Washington, D.C. 20151 

Dear Chaiiman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following statement for the hearing record regarding the 

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's Semi-Annual Report to Congress for April!, 2017 through 

September 30, 2017. U.S. PlRG is an independent non-profit, non-partisan consumer advocacy 

organization. 

These comments include a recap of the CFPB's significant accomplishments for consumers during the 

reporting period, an alert to consumer harms posed by certain recent agency actions, and our 

recommendations to the CFPB and Congress to ensure the Bureau fulfills its mission of protecting 

consumers. 

The CFPB's Accomplishments for Consumers 

First, we want to commend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for its accomplishments, 

including its enforcement actions, supervisory actions, and processing of consumer complaints that have 

helped keep the financial marketplace fair and competitive. 

Enforcement Actions 

By tallying up the over 50 enforcement actions from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017 

listed in the Semi-Annual report, we calculated approximately $538 million from pending orders or 

final judgements, including over $396 million for consumer redress, restitution, or disgorgement, 

and over $141 million in civil pcnalties.1 In total, since inception in 2011, the CFPB has taken over 

1 CFPB, Semi-annual report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protec;tion, April 2018 accessed at 

https:llfiles.consumerfinance.govlf/documentslcfpb semi-annual-report spring-2018.pdf 
147 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


180 enforcement actions and provided $12 billion in relief to over 29 million consumers. 2 Consistent 

and robust enforcement of rules not only provides justice for consumers when they are wronged but also 

prevents many unfair practices in the first place. 

We commend the bureau's career employees for following through on these recent actions. We are 

concerned, however, that many of these enforcement actions began before the acting director took over. 

All signs suggest enforcement activity is declining. According to the Associated Press; "In the 135 days 

since the Trump administration took control of the nation's consumer watchdog agency, it has not 

recorded a single enforcement action against banks, credit card companies, debt collectors or any 

finance companies whatsoever. "3 

Supervisory Activities 

According to the CFPB's Summer 2017 Supervisory Highlights report, the agency's supervisory actions 

generally completed between January 2017 and June 2017 resulted in total restitution payments of 

approximately $14 million to more than 104,000 consumers. In addition, these activities from this time 

period led to or supported two enforcement actions, resulting in about $1.15 million in consumer 

remediation and an additional $1.75 million in civil money penalties4 

According to the semi-annual report, the Consumer Bureau's Fair Lending Supervision program took 11 

supervisory events to ensure compliance with fair housing laws between April!, 2017, through 

September 30, 20175. Supervisory activity is an important tool that has allowed the CFPB to nip bad 

practices in the bud before they spread across the market. Along with strong enforcement activity, 

supervisory activity across the entire spectrum of the CFPB's supervisory authority should be continued. 

Further, public Supervisory Highlights reports are an important and highly-praised CFPB regulatory 

innovation that helps make the financial marketplace more transparent and makes it work better. These 

helpful quarterly reports must also continue. 

2 CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: By the numbers, accessed at 

https://s3.amazonaws.comlfiles.consumerfinance.govlfldocumentsl201707 cfpb by-the-numbers. pdf, 10 April 

2018. 

3 Ken Sweet, Associated Press, "Enforcement Actions Halt at Watchdog Agency Under Trump,"1 0 April2018, 

accessed at https:/lwww.apnews.comlc80a20db4a5942e7af9632b0cbf75700/Enforcement-actions-atwatchdog-agency-halt-under-Trump, 10 April2018 4 CFPB, Supervisory Highlights Issue 16, Summer 2017, September 2017 accessed at 

https:lls3.amazonaws.comlfiles.consumerfinance.gov/fldocumentsl201709 cfpb Supervisory-Highlights lssue16.pdf 10 April2018. 5 CFPB, Semi-annual report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, April 2018 accessed at 

https:llfiles.consumertinance.govlfldocumentslcfpb sem !-annual-report spring-2018.pdf , 
148 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Consumer Complaints and A Harmful Enforcement Shift Proposed By the Acting Director 

As noted in the semi-annual report, the Consumer Bureau has processed approximately 317,200 

consumer complaints during the period Oct. I, 2016 to Sept. 30, 20176 The report notes that the 

leading complaint category is debt collection. Tracking these data, the acting director has indicated an 

intention to shift enforcement toward debt collection and away from, for example, payday lending. The 

acting director has stated that this is simply using data. But the approach fails to recognize that debt 

collection problems occur only at the end of a fmancial product life cycle. The situations that lead to 

eventual debt collection complaints may have been triggered by much earlier unfair practices, including 

in marketing or lending. As the Bureau stated in its press release accompanying the now-stalled Navient 

enforcement action: 7 

"Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is suing the nation's largest servicer 

of both federal and private student loans for systematically and illegally failing bonowers at 

c\ery stage of repayment. For years, Navient. J(mnerly part of Sallie Mae, created obstacles to 

repayment by providing bad information, processing payments incorrectly, and failing to act 

when boiTowers complained. Through shortcuts and deception, the company also illegally 

cheated many stmggling bon·owcrs out of their rights to lower repayments. which caused them to 

pay much more than they had to for their loans. The Gurcau seeks to recover significant relief for 

the borrowers harmed by thcse illegal servicing failures'· 

Navient tailed "at every stage of repa:yment" starting with marketing and leading, eventually, to debt 

collection. Failing to properly surveil the entire marketplace for problems, based on the fallacy that debt 

collection has the most database complaints so it must be the worst problem, will only cause more 

problems to be missed and more consumers to be harmed. 

By searching the public database for complaints dming this time period, we can see that 12,221 of those 

complaints resulted in monetary relief by the complained-about company and an additional 24,329 

resulted in non-monetary relief, such as corrections of mistakes on credit repmts or resolution to debt 

collection harassment. 8 In total, since 2011, the Bureau has processed over 1.2 million complaints. Prior 

to the CFPB's database, consumers with unresolved problems were at the mercy of the very customer 

service practices that might have been part of the problem in the first place. The public nature of the 

database helps keep companies accountable to their customers. 

6 The semi-annual report lists the total number of complaints received by the CFPB. However, the online public 

database only publishes the complaints with enough information to be sent to companies for responses. There 

are 232,878 complaints published in the database for this reporting period. 

See CFPB, Consumer Complaint Database. 

accessed at hltps:!/www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/consumer-comp!aints/ 10 April2018. 7 News release, CFPB Sues Nation's Largest Student Loan Company Navient for Failing Borrowers at Every 

Stage of Repayment, 18 January 2017, accessed at https:llwww.consumerfinance.gov/about-uslnewsroomlcfpbsues-nations-largest-student-loan-company-navient-failing-borrowers-every-stage-repaymentl 

8 1bid. 
149 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Harms Posed to Consumers By Conflicts, Proposals and Actions of the Acting Director 

There are several harms posed to consumers by Acting Director Mick Mulvaney's conflicts of interest, 

certain agency actions during his tenure so far, aud his requests to Congress in the semi-annual report. 

These harms are detailed below. 

Conflicts oflnterest 

The appointment of Mick Mulvaney as acting director after fmmer director llichard Cordray resigned 

put the agency's independence and mission at risk. The CFPB was set up to be independent from 

political influence, but Mr. Mulvaney is a cun-ent Presidential cabinet member and a fonner member of 

Congress who previously co-sponsored a bill to get rid of the CFPB. 9 

Knowing that vacancies were bound to occur, Congress included in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act of 20 I 0-the law that created the CFPB-a specific provision clearly 

stating that the deputy director "shall serve ... as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the 

Director." 10 

Using a more general provision of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, President Trump named 

Mick Mulvaney-the current director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget-also as 

the acting director of the CFPB. The problem, however, is that the specific provision of Dodd-Frank 

governs over the general provision of the FVRA. 11 In addition, having a cun-ent member of the 

President's cabinet serve as the acting director violates the intent of Dodd-Frank, which envisioned the 

CFPB as an independent fmancial regulator free from political influence. 

Agency Actions that Put Consumers at Risk 

From the outset, the potential for Mr. Mulvaney using his platform as acting director to promote his and 

the administration's own agenda over the mission of the agency was great. We've quickly seen evidence 

of those conflicts of interest. During his tenure, the Consumer Bureau has taken actions that put 

consumers at risk of unfair practices, including: 

• Announcing its intention to open a rulemaking to reconsider and delay the CFPB's payday 

lending rule that requires payday lenders to make sure bon·owers can repay their loans. 12 This 

rule was crafted over several years of research, public input, and compromise. 

9 Rep. John Ratcliffe, H.R.3118 - To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial 

Protection Act of 2010, accessed at https:llwww.congress.gov/bill/114th-congresslhouse-biiV3118/cosponsors 10 

April2018. 

10 Michael Landis, "Why the Legal Dispute over the Leadership of the CFPB Matters," U.S. PIRG, 6 February 

2018 accessed at https:/luspirg.orq/blogs/bloglusplwhy·leqal-dispute-over-loadership-cfpb·matters 11 1bid. 12 Julia Horowitz, "CFPB Says It Will Reconsider Its Rule on Payday Lending," CNN Money, 16 January 2018. 
150 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


• Dropping its lawsuit against four online lenders that it had accused of deceiving consumers by 

collecting debts not legally owed, for loans with interest rates as high as 950 percent. 13 

• Pulling back from a full-scale investigation into the massive Equifax data breach, according to 

news reports. 14 Since these report~ came out, Acting Director Mulvaney indicated that the 

Consumer Bureau is continuing its investigation by claiming the agency's "position" on Equifax 

hasn't changed. 15 But it's unclear whether or not it is backing up its position by using all of its 

available tools to complete a robust investigation into the breach. 

• Planning a Call for Evidence, entailing 12 Requests for Infonnation (RFI), seeking public 

comments about CFPB practices without planning any RFis about marketplace practices. In 

contrast, during the preceding year, the CFPB issued 3 RFis for assessments of significant rules 

and 4 RFls about marketplace practices. 16 

Recommendations to Congress in Semi-Annual Report 

Mr. Mulvaney's four recommendations to Congress in the semi-annual report for statutory changes to 

the CFPB would take away the agency's independence and make it harder for it to do its job. The 

problems with each recommendation are explained below: 

1. Fund the Bureau through Congressional appropriations: This move would make the CFPB 

the only banking regulator in the U.S. without independent funding. Since the 1860s, all banking 

regulators have had independent funding to minimize undue political influence. Due to constant 

political gridlock over the budget, funding through Congressional appropriations likely would 

mean the Bureau would receive far less than what would be needed to do its job. Also, its 

activities would certainly be unduly influenced by attempts to secure more funding from 

Congress. You need only look to the problems that the two appropriated non-bank fmancial 

regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, face, both in levels of funding and restrictions placed on their ability to use those 

funds. 

2. Require legislative approval of major Bureau rules: This change would make it the only 

agency of any sort that has to get its major rules approved by Congress. Congress already has the 

enormous ability through use of the Congressional Review Act to repeal new rules with a simple 

m'\iority vote of both houses. Further, the Bureau is already the only regulator (financial, 

environmental, consumer, etc.) whose rules can be ovettumed by other regulators. This 

recommendation should not be accepted; it would make it virtually impossible for new 

protections to ever see the light of day. 

13 Zeke Faux, "CFPB Signals Shift by Dropping Payday Lender Lawsuit," Bloomberg, 18 January 2018. 14 Patrick Rucker, 'Exclusive: U.S. consumer protection official puts Equifax probe on ice -sources,' Reuters, 5 

February 2018. 15 Yuka Hayashi, 'No letup to CFPB investigation into Equifax, Mulvaney says,' Marke/Watchffhe Wall Street 

Journal, 13 February 2018. 16 CFPB, Semi-annual repgrt of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, April 2018 accessed at 

htlps:l/files.consumertinance.govlf/documentslcfpb semi-annual-report spring-2018.pdf 
151 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


3. Ensure that the Director answers to the President in the exercise of executive authority: 

The President already has the ability to fire the director "for cause," such as for corruption or 

incompetence. This recommendation appears to give the President the ability to fire the director 

arbitrarily, or at will. This completely runs counter to ensuring an independent agency tree from 

political influence. Several other agencies are also run by single directors who can only be fired 

"for cause." 

4. Create an independent Inspector General for the Bureau: There is already an inspector 

general for the CFPB at the Federal Reserve Board. Likely, the point of this recommendation is 

to replace the current inspector general for the CFPB with one that is appointed by the President, 

which would undermine the independence of the agency. 

It's one thing to have an acting director against the agency's mission who requests zero dollars for the 

next quarter, drops lawsuits against payday lenders, and delays a protection against debt traps, as Mr. 

Mulvaney has done. 17 But these recommendations, if implemented, would make it hard for the agency to 

get funding or issue and enforce any protections at all, long after Mr. Mulvaney's tenure at the agency is 

over. 

U.S. PIRG's Recommendations to the CFPB and to Congress 

To fulfill its mission of protecting consumers, the CFPB should: 

• Reinstate all delayed or terminated rulemakings, investigations and enforcement actions. 

Continue robust surveillance of the entire financial marketplace for threats to consmners and 

respond as appropriate in the circumstance, with supervisory, enforcement, rulemakiug or other 

actions. 

• Complete a strong debt collection rule improving protections for consumers. Continue other 

rulemakings on its Regulatory Agenda. 

• Maintain public access to a vibrant, transparent and complete consumer complaint database that 

encourages consumers, competitors, academics, other researchers and the complained-about 

companies themselves to study ways to make the marketplace work better. 

• Reinstate regular outreach to the public. The CFPB's monthly field hearings around the nation 

provided opportunities to hear from consumers about financial issues. Of course, banks and other 

regulated entities also can take advantage of these events, even though they already have 

significant ability to communicate with the Bureau directly. 

• Release updated statistics about its accomplishments, such as the dollar amount of relief 

provided to consumers, the number of consumers who have been provided relief, and the number 

of consumer complaints processed in tlte database. Typically, these numbers are updated 

quarterly, but they haven't been updated since July 20, 2017. 18 

17 Jim Puzzanghera, "Mulvaney requests zero funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau", LA Times, 

18 January 2018 accessed at http://www.latimes.comlbusinessna-fi-cfpb-mulvaney-funding-20180118-storv.html 18 CFPB, We're the CFPB, accessed at https:llwww.consumerfinance.gov/, 10 April2018. 
152 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


• Release the Monthly Complaint Report every month and with detailed company and state data 

again. Beginning in 2015, the CFPB published a Monthly Complaint Report to provide a "highlevel snapshot of trends in consumer complaints."19 Through April2017, these reports included 

data on companies that received the most complaints, and states where consnmers filed the most 

complaints. From April 2017 through October 2017, reports were no longer published on a 

consistent monthly basis, and no longer included company or state data20 After October 2017, 

publication of monthly reports was halted altogether. 

To ensure American consumers arc protected in the financial marketplace, Congress should: 

• Oppose Acting Director Mick Mnlvaney's recommendations in the Semi-Annual Report. Oppose 

any legislation to defund and defang the CFPB. 

• Urge President Trump to swiftly nominate a consumer champion to the director position of the 

CFPB for the Senate to confnm. As we have argued in a friend-of-the-court btief in the 

continuing legal dispute over the CFPB's temporary leadership, the law and public interest are 

best served by having the CFPB' s deputy director serve as acting director until the Senate 

confi1ms a new director nominated by the President21 Any nominee for permanent director 

should only be con finned if he or she supports the mission of the CFPB: protecting consumers. 

Sincerely yours, 

Edmund Mierzwinski 

Senior Director, Consumer Programs 

edmliilpirg.org 

MikeLitt 

Consumer Campaign Director 

mlit(((iJpirg.org 

19 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Monthly Complaint Report, Vol. 19, available at 

https:/lwww.consum erfinance.govldata-researchlresearch-reoortslmonth ly-complaint-report-vol-191 , 8 February 

2017. 

2

° Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Research & Reports, accessed at 

https:llwww.consumerfinance.gov/data-researchlresearch-reportsl on 4 April 2018. 21 Michael Landis, ''Why !he Legal Dispute over the Leadership of the CFPB Matters," U.S. PIRG, 6 February 

2018 accessed at https:l/uspirq.orglblogs/bloglusplwhy-leqal-dispute-over-leadership-cfpb-matters. 
153 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


AprillO, 2018 

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling 

Chairman 

Committee on Financial Services 

United States House of Representatives 

2129 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Hensarling: 

Please find enclosed a supplemental production of documents related to a request you 

originally made to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ("Bureau") on July 18, 2014. 

Based on the Committee's continued interest in the circumstances surrounding the 

decision to renovate the 1700 G Street building, as reflected in its February 22, 2018, request for 

a briefing and tour and as discussed with Committee staff during the March 8, 2018, briefing, the 

Bureau a~reed to undertake a renewed search for documents related to the Bureau's decision to 

renovate. The enclosed production supplements answers supplied by the Bureau on October 2, 

2014, March 2,. 2015, and March 16,2015, and Director Cordray's answers to questions by 

Committee members in hearings, and contains documents identified as potentially relating to the 

Bureau's decision to renovate the 1700 G Street building. 

In response to the Committee's prior inquiries, Director Cordray indicated that the initial 

building renovation decision was made prior to his recess appointment as Bureau Director, which 

was during the period of time when the U.S. Department of the Treasury ("Treasury 

Department") controlled the Bureau's operations (i.e., prior to January 4, 2012).2 Director 

1 The Bureau undertook a good-faith search or available records.ll is possible that additional records not yet located 

by the Bureau provide additional context regarding the initial decision lo renovate. Also, additional records may be 

located at other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

~Letter from Richard Cordray, Dir., CFPB to Hon. Jeb Hensarling, Chairman, H. Comm. on Fin. Scrv. (Mar. 2, 

20 15) ( "I have answered this question on severn! occasions: while the decision to locale to 1700 G Street and 

undertake a renovation was made prior to my appointment as Director, l have since reaffirmed iL "); Leucr from 

Richard Cordray. Dir., CFPB to Hon. Jcb Hensarling, Chairman, H. Comm. on Fin. Serv. (Mar. 16, 2015) ("Atthc 

time the initial decision to renovate the 1700 G Street huilding was made, the Bureau wus housed within the 

Department of Treasury .... The decision to renovate the 1700 G Street building occurred before I was appointed as 

Director of the Bureau, and, as I have explained before multiple comminees, I have re-af!inned that decision."); 

Semi-Annual Report of tile Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection: Hearing Before rite H. Comm. ott Fin. Sem, 

I 14th Cong. 71 (Mar. ~- 2015) (Director Cnrdmy slating. in respon'c to que~! ion !rom Reprc,cntathc Ann Wagner. 

"This decision occurred before I became the Director of the Bureau and it is a decision l have since reaflirmed ..• 

. "). Semi-Ammal Report oftbe Bureau of Consumer Financial Protecrio11: Hearing Before rite H. Comm. 011 Fin. 

Serv., I 14th Cong. 72, 74 (Mar.~- 2015) (Director Cordray slating. in rc,pon'c to question frotn Rcprc,cntJtiw Ann 

Wagner. "It was Treasury who was in charge of all Bureau operations." Also stating, in response to questions from 

I 
154 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Cordray also indicated that he did not know the identity of the individual who made the initial 

renovation decision. 3 

The Treasury Department has also previously provided information related to the timing 

of the initial decision to renovate the building. For instance, a June 30, 2014, report issued by the 

Office of the Inspector General for the Federal Reserve and Bureau ("OIG") noted that according 

to a Treasury Department official, the decision to renovate was made after January 21, 20 II (the 

date that Dan Tangherlini, the Treasury Department's Assistant Secretary for Management, 

signed a letter of intent on behalf of the Bureau to occupy the building), but the official did not 

know when or by whom.4 Additionally, on February 18, 2011, the Treasury Department issued a 

press release announcing that the Bureau's future permanent headquarters would be located at 

1700 G Street NW in Washington, DC.5 The press release acknowledged that "[b]efore the 

CFPB moves in, major renovations are needed to make more efficient use of space and to update 

the building to current energy and environmental standards."" 

As part of the Bureau's search for documents related to the decision to renovate, Bureau 

staff conducted an electronic search of the "Front Office" subfolder within the "Office of the 

Director" folder on the Bureau's intra-agency share drive. The search returned two documents 

dated January 24,2011 (hereinafter, the January 24 Memoranda) and addressed to Elizabeth 

Warren, who was then serving as the Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the 

Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.7 

The first document, an information memorandum authored by Diane Cantrell, then the 

Treasury Department's Team Lead for Facilities and Security, and entitled "OTS Building 

Representative Mick Mulvaney,"jThc Bureau] was part or Treasury. Treasury was running our operations .... That 

is quite possible [that somebody at Treasury could have authorized renovations]. That is why I say J can't be sure."). 

3 Semi-Ammo/ Report of 1he Bureatt of Consumer Financial Pro/eclion: Hearing Before the H. Co111111. 011 Fin. Sem, 

I 14th Con g. io~ (Mar. 16. 2016) (Director Corday Slating, in rcspnmc to Rcprc,cnrati\C Ann Wagner"s <JUC\tinn nr 

\\hcthcr .. !it was] Elizabeth Warren who absolutely ordered and authorized the renovation," "l don•t know.'·); SemiAnnual Report of/he Bureau ofCon.mmer Financial Pr01ecrio11: Hearing Before the H. Comm. 011 Fill. Sen•., !15th 

Cong. (Apr. 5. 2017) (DirectorCorrlay stating, in response tO<JUCslions from Rcprcscnlathc Lee Zeldin on whether 

Eht.ahcth Warren authoritcd the renmalion> ... "I don't know who made that decision .... As I said, I don't know. I 

don't have any way of knowing that. I wasn't in the leadership or the Bureau at the time. I wasn't privy to those 

decisions .... [l]n terms or who made that decision, I don't know.! have never seen any records on that .... "). 

4

See OIG, RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 29,2014, CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST REGARDING THECFPB's 

HEADQUARTERS RENOVATION PROJECT 6 (June 30, 2014). This repon also states that "[a]s of June 23, 2014.thc 

CFPB was unable to locate any documentation or the decision to fully renovate the building·• but was "attempting to 

locate legacy documents" for the OIG. I d. & n. 16. 

5 Press Release, U.S. DepL Troasury, Treasury Department Announces Permanent Hcadquarcers or Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (Feb. 18, 2011), m•ailable ar !Jttos:l/www.treasu!)',20YI[>r~ss-c.;ntcr/prc«­

rcl~asJ!SfP..ag~;;{!J!.!Q7.f.a~.lG see also Press Release. CFPB, Treasury Department Announces Permanent 

Headquarters of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Feb. 18. 2011), Ol'ailab/e at 

.!llns:J/www.cnn.smnc.•rf1nmtc;~,_.gov/:Jhu~.!:.._y~!new:;rqplJ}ltreasurv·tlcpartmcnt announcc::;; ... pcrm3ncnt-h~adquartcrs~oJ~ 

consu~cr-financittl~:nrntcctinQ~b_t_Jte~u/. 

6 /d. 

1 The copies of these documents that were located in the "Front Office" subrolder can be found in the enclosed 

production nt HFSC CFPB BLDG 001252-00!258. The complete lite path where the memoranda were found within 

the ··Front Office" subfolder, together with a description of the last modified date as indicated in the Iiles' mctadata. 

is described in Addendum #I. 

2 
155 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Assessment and Recommendation," described the results of a facility condition assessment 

conducted by a contractor for the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), the former occupant of 

the 1700 G Street NW building. The information memorandum stated that the assessment and 

the resulting capital improvement plan (collectively identified as the Gensler plan) "are useful as 

guides to the CFPB in determining what actions should be initiated to improve the condition of 

the building and office space:'8 Two attachments accompany the information memorandum. The 

first depicts the projects and associated costs identified in the Gensler report's ten-year capital 

improvement plan. The second depicts an alternate capital improvement plan focusing on 

projects affecting the aesthetics of the building interior and functionality of office space design. 

The second document, also authored by Diane Cantrell, is a decision memorandum for 

Elizabeth Warren dated January 24, 2011. The decision memorandum sought approval to initiate 

preparations to move into the 1700 G Street building. The memorandum states in pertinent part: 

Although decisions have not been made concerning the extent of renovations to 

be undertaken at the OTS building, it is very likely that we will need to occupy a 

portion of the OTS building soon after July 21, 2011, to alleviate the space 

constraints facing CFPB. At a minimum, CFPB would remodel the main lobby 

and update the interior office space. CFPB can occupy portions of the building 

while the lobby is being remodeled and office space is reconfigured. In addition, 

any future projects identified (as outlined in the Gensler report) can be completed 

while the building is occupied. 

In order to prepare for occupancy, design work and other preliminary steps should 

begin immediately so that construction is ready to commence August 2011. OTS 

has a procurement vehicle in place with three A&E firms that CFPB can write 

task orders against to obtain the services required. Attachment I provides a 

timeline for the lobby and office space projects. 

There are 5 floors of office space available in the OTS building. Two are 

currently occupied by the Federal Housing and Finance Administration (FHFA) 

whose lease expires October 31,2013. It is proposed the CFPB occupy two of the 

remaining floors and renovate one floor at a time. It is anticipated FHFA will 

vacate their space as early as January 2012, making their two floors available for 

additional swing space, as needed. 

It is estimated that the cost of each design project will be approximately $30,000.9 

Two additional pages accompany the decision memo. The first page outlines a draft 

timeline for lobby renovation, and the second page outlines a draft timeline for the renovation of 

office floors. 

The electronic PDF copy of the decision memorandum located in the share drive is 

unsigned, and the Bureau has not been able to locate a signed version. However, circumstantial 

evidence from the Bureau's search of email records indicates that it was likely presented to and 

8 HFSC CFPB BlDG 001176. 9 HFSC CFPB BLDG 001173. 

3 
156 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


approved by Ms. Warren. On Monday, January 24,2011, Treasury Department and Bureau staff 

circulated preliminary drafts of the January 24 Memoranda for review and editing. 10 The January 

24 Memoranda were prepared for provision "in advance of a meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 

lOam to brief Professor Warren on the OTS building and next steps," 11 and they appear to have 

been placed in Ms. Warren's Briefing Book for January 25, 2011. 12 The meeting also appears on 

Ms. Warren's publicly-released calendar. 1

) In an email dated January 26,2011, the day after the 

scheduled briefing was to take place, one staff member asked Diane Cantrell, "how did the 

briefing go with EW?" 14 Ms. Cantrell replied: 

Good. We got the go ahead to obtain design options for the lobby and office 

space. She increased the scope of the lobby design so the cost to obtain 

competitive designs from the 3 A&E has increased (estimated at $20/contractor"' 

$60,000) She was fine with spending the money to obtain the design options. 

I am working to finalize the lobby SOW and develop a SOW for the office design 

plus SOW for feasibility studies on other space she wanted to capture and use (ie 

- turning the patios into office space, creating office space out of the garage 

levels.). Will work with procurement to make this all happen. 

Anyway, a lot to do! Of course final decisions on design and amount of 

renovations to the building will ultimately impact when we occupy. More to 

come ...... 15 

The Bureau understands OTS, on the Bureau's behalf, subsequently entered into three 

task orders for designs from three vendors, valued at $20,000 apiece. 16 

The January 24 Memomnda were later circulated within the Bureau on at least two 

occasions. On May 3 I. 2011, an Attorney-Advisor in the Bureau's Office of Enforcement 

requested that an employee in the Operations Division search for materials in connection with an 

OIG request. The two January 24 Memoranda were identified and provided to the AttorneyAdvisor on June 6, 20 I I. This same email chain was then re-circulated among various Bureau 

employees in the Legal Division, Operations Division, External Affairs Division, and the Office 

of the Director in late February 2014 and March 2014. 11 

10 See HFSC CFPB BLDG 001245-001248. 

11 HFSC CFPB BLDG 001245. 

12 See HFSC CFPB BLDG 001165-001182. 

"Ms. Warren's Briefing Book for January 25, 2011 shows that the meeting was scheduled ror 10 a.m.; however, 

her public calendar indicates thatlhe meeting took place al ll a.m. See 

h!!!','\:l/www.cnqsumcrlin~<l<:e.,~ov/doe_unwJJWI ?.1.31l:;)Y,J;al,ry~acJ;m..J.QJ .l.clf 

14 HFSC CFPB BLDG 001191. 

15 HFSC CFPB BLDG 001191-001192. 

16 Contemporaneous records indicale thatlhree lobby and courtyard AlE design task orders of $20,000 apiece were 

awarded through OTS in April 2011, to AECOM Services, Gensler, and Karn Charuhas Chapman & Twohey. See 

HFSC CFPB BLDG 001193~001244. 

11 See HFSC CFPB BLDG 001249-001251. 

4 
157 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


The enclosed documents have been bates-labeled HFSC CFPB BLDG 001165 through 

001258 and are being provided in PDF, TIFF, and Native format. 18 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff 

contact Laura Hussain of the Bureau's Legal Division or Meredith Manna of the Bureau's Office 

of Legislative Affairs. Ms. Hussain can be reached at (202) 435-7789 and Ms. Manna can be 

reached at (202) 435-9785. 

Thank you again. 

cc: The Honorable Maxine Waters, Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial 

Services 

The Honorable Ann Wagner, Chair, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee oftbe 

House Committee on Financial Services 

The Honorable AI Green, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

of the House Committee on Financial Services 

~ The document at bates HFSC CFPB BLDG 001249·001251 was not readily available in Native format but will be 

provided in Native in a subsequent production. 

5 
158 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Addendum#l 

The January 24 Memoranda were found within the following folder: 

Z:\Office of the Director\Front Office\Departing Employee Archive\Gena Stem\!. 

SPACE\Background Materials 

Filename Date Modified 

Information Memorandum toE Warren from D Cantrell OTS Bldg March 21,2014 4:39PM 

Assessment and Recommendation. pdf 

Decision Memorandum forE Warren from D Cantrell to Initiate March 21,20144:40 PM 

Preparations to Move to OTS.pdf 
159 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Martin, Alyssa {CFPB)Disabled 

From: 

Sent: 

Martin, Alyssa (CFPB)Disabled 

Monday, January 24, 20117:26 PM 

To: Adeyemo, Adewale (Wally) (CFPB); Canfield, Anna (CFPB)Disabled; Geldon, 

Daniel (CFPB)Disabled; Jackson, Peter (CFPB); Howard, Jennifer (CFPB); Sealy, 

William (CFPB); Jackson, Monica (CFPB); Date, Rajeev (CFPB) disabled; Miller, 

Kimberly (CFPB)Disabled 

Subject: Briefing Book for 1/25 

Attachments: Calendar_1.25-1.28.pdf; CFPB Space.zip; MasterCard Incorporated Company 

Profile.doc; warren draft agenda.doc; Memo to EW- QMQRM Update 1-17-

ll.docx; Consumer Questions and Complaints.118.11 am.draft.doc; State of the 

US Economy - January 21, 2011 - FINAL. DOC; CFPB Management Weekly Report 

01-24-ll_sent.docx 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Schedule for 1/25-1/28 

2. CFPB Space Materials (Decision Memo, Info Memo, Timelines) 

3. MasterCard Primer, Community Bankers Briefing Material 

4. Resumes (unattached) 

5. Qualified Mortgages Update 

6. Consumer Response Update 

7. State of the Economy, 1/21 

8. Press Clips, 1/24 (unattached) 

9. Management Weekly Report 

Alyssa Martin 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Implementation Team 

Emai~.!EE;=@do.treas.gov Office 

Cell 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001165 
160 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


8:30 AM • 9:00AM 

9:00 AM - 9:30AM 

9~30 AM - 10:00 AM 

10:00 AM - 10:30 AM 

10:30 AM - 11:00 AM 

12:00 PM - 1:00 PM 

1:00 PM - 1:30 PM 

2:00 PM - 2:30 PM 

3:00 PM - 3:30 PM 

4:00 PM • 4:45 PM 

5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 

Warren, Elizabeth (CFPB) 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Momlng Staff Meeting -- 1110ll St. (SSO) 

Hiring Interview with Rebecca Ewing -- 1801l St. (550) 

CFPB Meeting -- Conference Room 503 (A} 

Check In w/ Nani Coforetti and Elizabeth Warren -· 550 

Hiring Interview with Sartaj Alag -- 1801l St. (550) 

Mortgage Servicing I TFG Prep (continued) -- 1801 L St. (550) 

Front Office Staffing •• 18~ll St. {550) 

Meeting with Wisconsin Bankers Association -- 2316MT 

Contact: Rose Peels 

WBAStaff: 

Kurt Bauer, President and CEO, WBA 

Robert Just, Jr., Chairman of WBA and President of Mound City Bank (Platteville, WI) 

Dan Riebe, Vice Chair of WBA and President of the Peoples Bank of Wisconsin (Eau Claire, 

WI) 

Rose Poe!s, Senior VP and Counsel, WBA 

Media Interview with Donovan Slack {Boston Globe) 

Meeting with Ajay Banga (CEO, MasterCard) ~- 2316MT 

MasterCard Staff: 

Shawn Miles, Head of Global Public Policy 

George Foote, Senior Business leader, Public Policy 

Meeting with Staff~- Secretary's Small Conference Room 

When: Tuesday, January 25, 20115:00 PM-6:00PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & 

Canada). 

Where; Secretary's Small Conference Room 

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. 

TOPIC: RECONVENE SERVICER STANDARDS & 

FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT MEETING 

Participants: 

1/2.4/2011 7:2.1 PM 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLOG_001166 
161 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


6:30 PM - 7:00 PM 

AllDay 

9:30 AM - 10:00 AM 

10:15 AM • 10:45 AM 

11:15 AM - 11:45 AM 

12:.15 PM - 12:45 PM 

1:30 PM - 2:00 PM 

2:15 PM - 2:45 PM 

3:00 PM • 3:30 PM 

4:00 PM - 4:30 PM 

4:30 PM - 5:00 PM 

5:30 PM - 9:00 PM 

8:30AM - 9:00AM 

Warren, Elizabeth (CfPB) 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Secretary Geithner 

Neal Wolin 

Jeff Goldstein 

Don Graves 

Phyllis Caldwell 

Elizabeth Warren 

Lucy Morris 

Pat McCoy 

Raj Date 

Call with Joe Klein (TIME) 

Hill Day 

Meeting with Rep. lynn Westmoreland 

Meeting with OK Attorn~ General Scott Pruitt -- Rayburn Cafeteria 

Meeting with Rep. Francisco Canseco 

Meeting with Rep. Shelley Capito 

Meeting wjth Jeanne Roslanowick & Michael Beresik 

Meeting with Rep. Maxine Waters 

Meeting with Rep. Michael Grimm 

Meeting with Rep. Ed Royce 

Meeting with Rep. Mike Capuano 

DNS 

Call with Drew Faust (HLS) 

Call home 

CONFIDENTIAL 

1/24/2011 7:21 PM 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001167 
162 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


9:15 AM ~ 9:30 AM 

l!l:OO AM ~ 12:00 PM 

12:00 PM • 1:30 PM 

1:25 PM - 1:55 PM 

2:00 PM • 2:45 PM 

3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 

4:15 PM • 5:00 PM 

5:30 PM - 6:00 PM 

6:00 PM • 6:30 PM 

8:30 AM - 9:00AM 

9:00 AM - 11:00 AM 

1:00 PM ~ 1!30 PM 

2:00 PM ~ 2:30 PM 

3:00 PM • 3:30 PM 

4:00 PM ~ 4:30 PM 

Warren, B!zabeth {CFPB) 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Call with Dalie Jimenez 

Policy Meeting ·- 180ll St. {Conference Room 503) 

lunch/Check In with Raj Date, Dan Gel don, and Wally Adeyemo -- 1801l St. (550) 

Thorn Hartmann Radio Program 

Financial Education Update ·- 1801l St. {550) 

Meeting with Nancy Hogan (Deputy Secretary, Presidential Personnel), Mona Sutphen (WH Deputy Chief 

of Staff), Neal Wolin {Deputy Secretary, Treasury} --White Hou.se 

Meeting with the Council of Institutional Jtwestors -- 2316MT 

Budget Update •• lBOll St. {550) 

2011 Operating Plan Meeting -- 180ll St. (550) 

Morning Staff Meeting -- 1801l St. (550) 

EW Hiring IntervieW$ 

9am- Adam Frisch- Asst. Director for Deposits and Payments 

9:30am- Got Thompson 

Meeting with Austan Goolsbee (Chairman. Council of Economic Advisers) ~~ EEOB 484 

Contact: Meryl Holt 

Meeting with Jared Bernstein {Chief Economist and Economic: Policy Adviser to Vice President Biden) •• 

EEOB 222 

Meeting with Jim Rohr (CEO, PNC) 

PNC Staff: 

Joe Guyaux 

Andrew Miller 

Robert Hoyt 

Meeting with Melody Sames •• Melody's Office 

CONFIDENTIAL 

1/24/2011 7:21 PM 

HFSC_CFP8_8LDG_001168 
163 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

5:00 PM ~ 6:00 PM EV Calls~- 550 

6:00 PM ~ 6:15 PM End of the Week Check In with Wally Adeyemo 

7:00 PM • 9:00 PM Dinner with Steve Glassman 

Warren, Elizabeth {CFPB) 1/24/2011 7:21PM 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB_BLDG _ 00116£ 
164 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This document: family member (or some of its attachments if any) has not been included in this production. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB""BLDG_001170 
165 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Attachment 1: Building Projects- Draft Timeline 

Lobby Renovation 

Design Concept 

February 1, 2011-award design competition task orders 

February 7- hold pre-concept design meeting (note SOW doesn't specifY 

window for this- state "within one week") 

March 24-- presentations must be completed ( 45 days after meeting per SOW) 

March 25-28- presentations by 3 AlE firms 

March 28 -April 8 - Decision window for CFPB to choose design (2 weeks) 

Design/Construction Documents 

April25 - Award design contract (I allowed 2 weeks for procurement to award the 

task order) 

May 2- Post award meeting (change SOW to "within one week") 

June 16 - 30% submittals due, including prospectus on programmatic portion 

(SOW gives 45 days) 

July 30- CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to allow 14 days) 

August 14 60% submittals due (SOW gives 45 days after comments) 

August 24 CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to allow 10 days) 

September 23-90% submittals due (SOW gives 30 days after comments) 

October 3-- CFPB comments due to A/E (change SOW to allow 10 days) 

November 2 100% submittals due (SOW gives 30 days) 

November 12 -CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to 10 days) 

November 26- bid documents submitted (SOW gives 14 days) 

Construction Award 

December 6 -Issue bid package to prospective contractors (use existing federal 

energy contracts) 

December 10- Pre-Proposal Conference 

December 24 -Bids due 

December 27- January 7, 2012- Technical review of proposals (with AlE 

involvement) 

January 7- Award Recommendation 

January 14- Award 

January 21 - Post Award Meeting 

Construction 

January- June 30, 2012- Construction (assumes no hidden issues or particularly 

complex design features) 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001171 
166 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Renovation of Office Floors 

Schedule by Floor: 

February 28- Award of NE Contract 

March 7 Kick-Off Meeting 

Second Floor 

March 8, 2011-July 25, 2011- Design second floor 

July 26, 2011- August 15, 2011 Award construction contract (2nd floor) 

August 16,2011- January 9, 2012- Construction (2nd floor) 

January 10,2012- January 16- Occupy 2nd floor/vacate 6'h floor 

Sixth Floor 

May 17, 2011- August 22, 2011- Design sixth floor 

August 23,2011 September 12,2011- Award construction contract (6th floor) 

January 17, 2012- May 21, 2012 Construction (6'h floor) 

May 22, 2012 May 28, 2012- Occupy 6tl' floor/vacate 5th floor 

Third Floor 

July 12, 2011 - October 17, 2011 - Design third floor 

October I 8, 2011 -November 7, 2011 Award construction contract (3'd floor) 

February 2, 2012 June 6, 2012- Construction (3'd floor) 

June 7, 2012- June 13, 2012- Occupy 2nd floor/vacate fomih floor 

Fourth Floor 

August 9, 2011 -November 14, 2011 Design fourth floor 

November 15,2011- December 5, 2011 Award construction contract (4'h floor) 

February 2, 2012 June 6, 2012- Construction (4th floor) 

June 7, 2012- June 14,2012- Occupy 4'h floor 

Fifth Floor 

June 14, 2011 September 19, 20!1 -Design fifth floor 

September 20, 2011 October 10, 2011- Award construction contract (S'h floor) 

May 29,2012 October 1, 2012 Construction (5th floor) 

October 2, 2012- October 8, 2012 Occupy 5'h floor/vacate third floor 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001172 
167 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

DECISION MEMOR<\NDUM :FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

Initiate Preparations to Move into OTS Building 

Recommendation 

That you approve our plan to move ahead with design options for renovating the 

OTS lobby and office space. 

Approve ---~ Disapprove ---··-Let's Discuss 

Although decisions have not been made concerning the extent of renovations to be 

undertaken at the OTS building, it is very likely we will need to occupy a portion 

of the OTS building soon after July 21, 2011, to alleviate the space constraints 

facing CFPB. At a minimum, CFPB would remodel the main lobby and update the 

interior office space. CFPB can occupy portions of the building while the lobby is 

being remodeled and office space is reconfigured. In addition, any futnre projects 

identified (as outlined in the Gensler report) can be completed while the building is 

occupied. 

In order to prepare for occupancy, design work and other preliminary steps should 

begin immediately so that construction is ready to commence August 2011. OTS 

has a procurement vehicle in place with three A&E firms that CFPB can write task 

orders against to obtain the services required. Attachment 1 provides a timeline 

for the lobby and office space projects. 

There are 5 floors of office space available in the OTS building. Two are currently 

occupied by the Federal Housing and Finance Administraton (FHFA) whose lease 

expires October 31,2013. It is proposed the CFPB occupy two of the remaining 

floors and renovate one floor at a time. It is anticipated FHF A will vacate their 

space as early as January 2012, making their two floors available for additional 

swing space, as needed. 

It is estimated that the cost of each design project will be approximately $30,000. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001173 
168 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

CFPB BUILDING PLAN 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001174 
169 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

CFPB BUILDING PLAN 

*This work occurs within office space. Delaying until post-occupancy wi!l significantly increase the cost and will have a negative impact on office 

occupants. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001175 
170 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

OTS Building Assessment and Recommendation 

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) contracted with Gensler, an architectural 

and engineering firm, to conduct a Facility Condition Assessment of its 

headquarters building at 1700 G Street, NW. Gensler conducted a detailed 

inspection of the building and its systems to determine its current condition and 

then developed a ten-year capital improvement plan that would bring the facility to 

a Class B+ designation. (Class B office space has high tenant standards and good 

location, construction, and management.) The capital improvement plan details 

recommended improvements to the building envelope, interior finishes, courtyard, 

and plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems. 

The Gensler assessment and the resulting capital improvement plan are useful as 

guides to the CFPB in determining what actions should be initiated to improve the 

condition of the building and office space. The Gensler plan calls for 

improvements over a period of 10 years. However, a number of these projects can 

be initiated shortly after CFPB obtains the building. These include renovation of 

the main building lobby, updating of interior office space to include restacking, 

new office furniture, and updated lighting and finishes, elevator cab upgrades, 

HVAC and electrical upgrades, replacement of the exterior courtyard and 

sidewalks, and repairs to the parking garage decks. These projects would not 

impact CFPB 's ability to occupy the building and would be scheduled and 

managed to minimize disruption. Federal Housing Finance Administration, Small 

Savers Child Care Development Center and retail tenants would also be present in 

the building during this period. 

Attachment A depicts the projects and associated costs that have been identified 

under the Gensler ten-year capital improvement plan. With the exception of the 

courtyard and sidewalk renovation, which will require extensive design work, it is 

estimated that all projects identified in Year One can be substantively completed 

within a one year after CFPB takes occupancy of the building provided design 

work and other preliminary steps be initiated immediately in preparation for 

project implementation. The other projects identified in the plan would span into 

future years and be managed accordingly. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLOG_001176 
171 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Due to the cost and complexity of the ten-year capital improvement plan, an 

alternative proposal is presented in Attaclnnent B. CFPB could choose to initiate 

only those projects that affect the aesthetics of the building interior and 

functionality of office space design. Failure to complete other projects identified 

by Gensler would delay the replacement and maintenance of aging mechanical and 

electrical systems and would prevent CFPB from meeting federal energy and 

environmental mandates. In addition, the building would not receive a Class B+, 

LEAD Silver or Energy Star rating. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001177 
172 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This document family member (or some of its attachments if any) has not been included in this production. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001178 
173 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This document family member (or some of its attachments if any) has not been included in this production. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB_BLDG_ 001179 
174 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This document family member (or some of its attachments if any) has not been included in this production. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFP6_6LDG_001180 
175 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This document family member (or some of its attachments if any) has nat been included in this production. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001181 
176 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

This document family member (or some of its attachments if any) has not been included in this production. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001182 
177 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Canfield, Anna (CFPB)Disabled 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Canfield, Anna (CFPB)Disabled 

Monday, January 24, 20114:02 PM 

Martin, Alyssa (CFPB)Disabled 

FW: EW Briefing 

Attachments: Decision memorandum for EW on design options.docx; Attachment 1 - Projects 

Timeline.docx; Information Memo For EW on OTS building improvements.docx; 

Info memo Attachment A.docx; Info memo - Attachment B.docx 

For EW's book. Nani is going to use her time tomon·ow to bricfE\V on space. 

From: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:01 PM 

To: cantrell, Diane (CFPB); canfield, Anna (CFPB) 

Cc: Coloretti, Nani (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: p.JV Briefing 

Reformatted memos attached 

From: cantrell, Diane (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:49 PM 

To: canfield, Anna (CFPB) 

Cc: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB); Coloretti, Nani (CFPB) 

Subject: p.JV Briefing 

The attached are materials provided in advance of a meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 1 Oam to brief Professor 

Warren on the OTS building and next steps. Please let me know if you need any additional infonnation. 

Diane 

CONFIDENTIAL liFSC_GFPB_BLDG_001183 
178 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Attachment 1: Building Projects- Draft Timeline 

Lobby Renovation 

Design Concept 

February 1, 2011 award design competition task orders 

February 7 hold pre-concept design meeting (note- SOW doesn't specify 

window for this state "within one week") 

March 24- presentations must be completed (45 days after meeting per SOW) 

March 25-28- presentations by 3 A/E firms 

March 28 -April 8 - Decision window for CFPB to choose design (2 weeks) 

Design/Construction Documents 

April25- Award design contract (I allowed 2 weeks for procurement to award the 

task order) 

May 2 --Post award meeting (change SOW to "within one week") 

June 16 - 30% submittals due, including prospectus on programmatic portion 

(SOW gives 45 days) 

July 30 CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to allow 14 days) 

August 14 60% submittals due (SOW gives 45 days after comments) 

August 24 CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to allow 1 0 days) 

September 23- 90% submittals due (SOW gives 30 days after comments) 

October 3 - CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to allow 1 0 days) 

November 2 100% submittals due (SOW gives 30 days) 

November 12- CFPB comments due to AlE (change SOW to 10 days) 

November 26- bid documents submitted (SOW gives 14 days) 

Construction Award 

December 6- Issue bid package to prospective contractors (use existing federal 

energy contracts) 

December 10- Pre-Proposal Conference 

December 24 - Bids due 

December 27- January 7, 2012- Technical review of proposals (with AlE 

involvement) 

January 7- Award Recommendation 

January 14- Award 

January 21- Post Award Meeting 

Construction 

January- June 30, 2012- Construction (assumes no hidden issues or particularly 

complex design features) 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001184 
179 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Renovation of Office Floors 

Schedule by Floor: 

February 28- Award of AJE Contract 

March 7- Kick-OffMecting 

Second Floor 

March 8, 2011- July 25, 2011 -"Design second floor 

July 26,2011- August 15,2011- Award construction contract (2"d floor) 

Augnst 16, 2011 -January 9, 2012- Construction (2nd floor) 

January 1 0, 2012 -January 16 - Occupy 2nd floor/vacate 6'h floor 

Sixth Floor 

May 17,2011 August22,2011 Design sixth floor 

August 23, 2011 -September 12, 2011 -Award construction contract (6th floor) 

January 17,2012- May 21,2012- Construction (6th floor) 

May 22,2012 -May 28,2012- Occupy 6tl' floor/vacate 5'h floor 

Third Floor 

July 12, 2011- October 17, 2011 Design third floor 

October 18,2011- November 7, 2011 Award construction contract (3'd floor) 

February 2, 2012-June 6, 2012 Construction (3'd floor) 

June 7, 2012-June 13, 2012- Occupy 2nd floor/vacate fourth floor 

Fourth Floor 

August 9, 2011- November 14,2011 Design fourth floor 

November 15,2011 December 5, 2011- Award construction contract (4'h floor) 

February 2, 2012 June 6, 2012- Construction (4'h floor) 

June 7, 2012 June 14, 2012 - Occupy 4'h floor 

Fifth Floor 

June 14,2011- September 19,2011- Design fifth floor 

September 20, 2011 October 10, 2011 -Award construction contract (S'h floor) 

May 29,2012 October I, 2012 Construction (5th floor) 

October 2, 2012- October 8, 2012 Occupy 5th floor/vacate third floor 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _CFPB_BLDG _ 001185 
180 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

Initiate Preparations to Move into OTS Building 

Recommendation 

That you approve to move ahead with design options for renovating the OTS lobby 

and office space. 

____ Approve ____ Disapprove ____ Let's Discuss 

Although decisions have not been made concerning the extent of renovations to be 

undertaken at the OTS building, it is very likely we will need to occupy a portion 

of the OTS building soon after July 21, 2011, to alleviate the space constraints 

facing CFPB. At a minimum, CFPB would remodel the main lobby and update the 

interior office space. CFPB can occupy portions of the building while the lobby is 

being remodeled and oflice space is reconfigured. In addition, any future projects 

identified (as outlined in the Gensler report) can be completed while the building is 

occupied. 

In order to prepare for occupancy, design work and other preliminary steps should 

begin immediately so that construction is ready to commence August 2011. OTS 

has a procurement vehicle in place with three A&E firms that CFPB can write task 

orders against to obtain tl1e services required. Attachment 1 provides a timeline 

for the lobby and office space projects. 

There are 5 floors of office space available in the OTS building. Two are currently 

occupied by the Federal Housing and Finance Administraton (FHFA) whose lease 

expires October 31, 2013. It is proposed the CFPB occupy two of the remaining 

floors and renovate one floor at a time. It is anticipated FHF A will vacate their 

space as early as January 2012, making their two floors available for additional 

swing space, as needed. 

It is estimated that the cost of each design project will be approximately $30,000. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_ CFPB_ BLDG_ 001186 
181 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

CFPB BUILDING PLAN 

CONFIDENTIAL 

Cleanandpaintexteriorsteelon 

roofwithrust"inhlbtt1ngextenor 

HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001187 
182 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONlY 

CFPB BUILDING PLAN 

Garageinspectandwutlne 

maintenance-$173,019 

Cho~n and paint exterior steel on 

roofwithru:>t-inhibit!ngexterior 

*This work occurs within office space, Delaying until post-occupancy will significantly increase the cost and will have a negative impact on office 

occupants, 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001188 
183 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

OTS Building Assessment and Recommendation 

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) contracted with Gensler, an architectural 

and engineering firm, to conduct a Facility Condition Assessment of its 

headquarters building at 1700 G Street, NW. Gensler conducted a detailed 

inspection of the building and its systems to detennine its current condition and 

then developed a ten-year capital improvement plan that would bring the facility to 

a Class B+ designation. (Class B building is described as having high tenant 

standards and good location, construction, and management.) The capital 

improvement plan details recommended improvements to the building envelope, 

interior finishes, courtyard, and plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems. 

The Gensler assessment and the resulting capital improvement plan are useful as 

guides to the CFPB in detennining what actions should be initiated to improve the 

condition of the building and office space. The Gensler plan calls for 

improvements over a period of I 0 years. However, a number of these projects can 

be initiated shortly after CFPB obtains the building. These include renovation of 

the main building lobby, updating of interior office space to include restacking, 

new office furniture, and updated lighting and finishes, elevator cab upgrades, 

HVAC and electrical upgrades, replacement of the exterior courtyard and 

sidewalks, and repairs to the parking garage decks. These projects would not 

impact CFPB's ability to occupy the building and would be scheduled and 

managed to minimize disruption. Federal Housing Finance Administration, Small 

Savers Child Care Development Center and retail tenants would also be present in 

the building during this period. 

Attachment A depicts the projects and associated costs that have been identified 

under the Gensler ten-year capital improvement plan. With the exception of the 

courtyard and sidewalk renovation, which will require extensive design work, it is 

estimated that all projects identified in Year One can be substantively completed 

within a one year after CFPB takes occupancy of the building provided design 

work and other preliminary steps be initiated immediately in preparation for 

project implementation. The other projects identified in the plan would span into 

futnre years and be managed accordingly. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001189 
184 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Due to the cost and complexity of the ten-year capital improvement plan, an 

alternative proposal is presented in Attachment B. CFPB could choose to initiate 

only those projects that affect the aesthetics of the building interior and 

functionality of office space design. Failure to complete other projects identified 

by Gensler would delay the replacement and maintenance of aging mechanical and 

electrical systems and would prevent CFPB from meeting federal energy and 

environmental mandates. In addition, the building would not receive a Class B+, 

LEAD Silver or Energy Star rating. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001190 
185 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


From: 

To: 

SUbject 

Date: 

fyi 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Mann, Benjamin {CFPB) 

(aofi<>!d Anna <CF£81Djsab!ed 

FW: Space Projections Union Center and 717 14 Stxlsx 

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:40:44 PM 

From: Cantrell, Diane (CFPB) 

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:39 PM 

To: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Projections Union Center and 717 14 St.xlsx 

Good. We got the go ahead to obtain design options for the lobby and office space. She increased 

the scope of the lobby design so the cost to obtain competitive dcsit,'11S from the 3 A&E has 

increased (estimated at $20/contracror := $60,000) She was fine with spending the money to obtain 

the design options. 

Tam working to finalize the lobby SOW and develop a SO\V for the office dc~ign plus SOW for 

feasibihty studies on other space she wanted to capture and use (ie- tuming the patios into office 

space, creating office space out of the garage levels.). Will work \\~lth procurement to make this all 

happen. 

Anyway, a l01 to do! Of course final decisions on dcsit,'ll and amollilt of renovations to the building 

will ultimately impact when we occupy. More to come .. 

_____ .. __ ... _ ..______ .,_ .... -.------··--·--••»>» >»>>»»>>>»»>>»>•»>>>»»>>>»»»»>--

From: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB) 

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:17PM 

To: cantrell, Diane (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Projections Union Center and 717 14 St.xlsx 

Been r1eaning to ask, how did the briefing go with EW? 

From: cantrell, Diane (CFPB) 

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:08PM 

To: canfield, Anna (CFPB) 

Cc: Coloretti, Nani (CFPB); Mann, Benjamin (CFPB) 

Subject: Space Projections Union Center and 717 14 St.xlsx 

AnnaPer our c01wersation, you had asked for information to present Wally on space issues/options. 

Attached is a chart that depicts three scenarios- current space, current space plus 717 14th St, and 

current space plus 14th St!Union Center. 

The data does not include use of the OTS space since that is not a definite option. In addition 1 as we 

plan for the building renovations we need to have swing space. The timing of when we occupy the 

OTS space (partially or fully) depends on many factors relating to the final decisions surrounding the 

design and renovation work. We are several months away from having these types of decisions. In 

addition, it should be noted that the SEC and OCC space once believed to be options are no longer 

viable ones. 

I strongly believe we need to utilize all space currently available to us including both Union Center 

th 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001191 
186 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

and 14 St. IRS has resolved their issues and will be vacating Union Center in early March. We 

would need to clean up/paint prior to occupancy but should be able to get into the space mid-late 

March. Treasury has been working with GSA to determine a schedule for occupying 717 14th St. 

Since the building would require remodeling prior to us coming in, it is projected we could move in 

June/July timeframe. (This date has slipped since we originally talked to Treasury.) 

I know it is the desire of management to keep the team together but as we approach critical mass, we 

need to be realistic in our approach to space to ensure we provide adequate work space for staff and 

not limit our options when planning for the design and occupancy of the OTS building. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Diane 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001192 
187 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Cantrell, Diane J 

From: Cantrell, Diane J 

Sent: 

To: 

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:07PM 

Cantrell, Diane (CFPB)Disabled 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Fw: Lobby Design Task Orders 

Task0rder2(AECOM).exe.pdf; Task0rder2(KCCT).exe.pdf; Task0rder2 

(Gensler).exe.pdf 

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 

From: Adams, Andre D 

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 05:45 PM 

To: Chuhaj, Yuri J 

Cc: Cantrell, Diane J; Davidson, TerriL 

Subject: Lobby De~gn Task Orders 

Attached are copies of the task orders for the lobby design for your records. 

Andre Adams 

Contracting Officer 

Office of Thrift Supervision 

1700 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20552 

Tel. __ _ 

Fax···-

Email ····l~@i),o~ts,;.tre~al§_s.,.gg~ov 

This e-mail and all attachments to it are for the sole use of the intended reciplent{s} and may contain source 

selection information that is protected by the Procurement Integrity Act or other applicable Federal law that protects 

the information from disclosure to anyone other than the intended reciplent(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, 

distribution, or copying of this e-mail and its attachments by any person other than the intended reclpient(s) or for 

any purpose other than lts intended use is prohibited. If you are not the intended ~cipient(s), let the sender know 

by reply e-mail and then erase and destroy all electronic or other copies of this message. 

<<Task0rder2(AECOM).exe.pdf>> <<Task0rder2(KCCT}.exe.pdf>> <<Task0rder2(Gensler).exe.pdf>> 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001193 
188 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

04/20/2011 

0002 

5 ISSUING OFfiCE (Adriress 001rospond!>nce to) 

OTS- WASHINGTON 

1700 G STREET NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20552 

a. NAME Of CONTAACTOR 

AECOM SERVICES INC. 

4. REOU!SlTlONIREFERENCE NO 

FAC-110052 

ITEM NO ,,, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

~) 

This task order will const5 tute 

Two upder the referenced contract. The 

Contractor shall services in 

attached statement of 

(Atta<chrnent A) and its proposal dated 

PARKERSBURG 

22- UNITEDSTATESOF 

AMERICA 6Y (S~g~~a/ure} 

AliTH.ORilEO fOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION 

PREVIOI.IllED!TIONNOTUSABLE 

OTS-WASHINGTON 

h. STREET ADDRESS 

1700 G STREET NW 

c C!TY 

WASHINGTON 

2(1. INVOICE NO 

CONFIDENTIAL 

17 

d STA.TE e. ZIP CODE 

DC 20552 

lKJ b. DELIVERY 

AMOUNT 

'" 

11{•) 

GRANO 

TOTAL 

.... 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001194 
189 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

SCHEDULE - CONTINUATION 

IMPORT ANT: M;uk all packages and papms with oontl';;~ct andi<X order numbers 

DATE OF ORDER CONTRACT NO, 

04/20/2011 TOTS-D-10-D-0001 

!•I 

0001 

SUPPUES!SERV!CES 

{b) 

Admin Office: 

OTS-WASHINGTON 

1700 G STREET NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20552 

Ac<:ounting Info: 

OTS41 0 8REXXXX/2 011/610001/ OTS 8 9 0 00 0 0/2 541/0 

0 00 0 00 /XXX !XXI OTS62 54 01 /XXXXXXXXX /XXXXXXXXX 

Period of Performance: 12/11/2009 to 

09/30/2014 

Lobby Design 

Continued ... 

TOTAL CARRIED fORWARD TO 1ST PAGE {ITEM 17(H)) 

AUT!iORIZHlFORIOCIIII<E?QOIJCll()N 

PREVIOUSEDITIONNOTU$AlllE 

CONFIDENTIAL 

ACCEPTED 

{9) 

20,000.00 

20,000.00 

OPTIONAL FORM 341.11,.,.. ~ao<><l 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001195 
190 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

SCHEDULE- CONTINUATION 

IMPORTANT: Mali<. all packages and papars with contract andtoron:iernumbern 

DATE Of OROER jCONTRACT NO 

04/20/2011 ITOTS-D-10-D-0001 

1•1 ~) 

PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE ORDER NUMBER (BLOCK 

3) IS CLEARLY VISIBLE ON ALL 

SHIPPTNG/Sl:~RVICE DOCUMEN'fS, CONTAIN:SRS, AND 

INVOICES. FOR PAYMENT AND INVOICE 

QUESTlONS CONTACT ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUN'l'S 

BRANCH AT- --. 

52.232-33 PAYMENT BY ELECTRONIC FUNDS 

TRANSFER-CENTRAL CONTRAC1'0R REGISTRATION 

PAYMENT (OCT 2003). 

RECEl VE A FREE E-MAIL NOTICE OF YOUR 

EI.ECTRONIC PAYMENT. REGISTER AT 

HTTP:/ /fMS. 'l'REAS.GDV/PAID. 

ACCORDING TO 52.204-7 CENTRAL CO~TRACTOR 

REGISTRATION (APR 2008), THE CONTRACTOR 

MUST REGISTER IN THE CCR DATABASE AND 

~INTAIN REGISTRATION DURING PERFORMANCE 

AND THROUGH FINAl, PAYMENT OF THIS AWARD. 

INVOIC:SS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY 

TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS SHOWN IN BJ,OCK ?.lB, 

1. PROTEC'::'ED MICROSOFT EXCEL FI:.ES ARE 

REFERRED FORMAT, HOWEVER, ADOBE 

RTABLE DOCUMENT FOR.v.AT (PDF) AND 

FT WORD ARE ALSO ACCEPTABLE. 

The total amount of award; $20,000.00. The 

obligation for this award is shown in box 

17 {i). 

lOlAL CARRIED FORWARD TO 1ST PAGE (ITEM 17(H)) 

AlH HORIZ!CO FOR LOCN.. REPODUCTH)N 

PREV!OUSEO!TION"'OTUSABlE 

QUANTITY UNIT 

ORDERED 

{c) (d) 

CONFIDENTIAL 

UNIT 

PR>CE 

,,, 

I

OROERNO 

0002 

_:gl.OO 

OPTIONAL FORM J48(Rov •moo) 

P<..,.,...OVGS...fAA(4'Cf'R)5321>fl) 

HFSC_CFPB~BLDG_001196 
191 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Attachment A 

1.0 SCOPE 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Statement of Work 

For Architectural/Engineering Design Services 

Renovation of Main Lobby /Courtvard 

Office of Thrift Supervision Building 

january 31,2011 

1.1 Title I Services: The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), on behalf of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), requests the procurement of 

architectural and engineering (A/E) services under existing A/E task order 

contracts for the design of the renovation of the main lobby (and adjoining 

reclaimed retail space and breezeway) and exterior courtyard of the OTS 

building at 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552. The A/E Contractor 

shall perform survey and complete all design work, drawings, calculations, 

specifications, cost estimates, and schedules required to prepare the site in 

accordance with the guidelines established by this Statement of Work. The 

A/E Contractor shall design a complete lobby facility including furnishings 

such that it will support employees and those doing business with CFPB. 

Additionally, the lobby shall include a visitor center that incorporates 

exhibits and educational elements for the public. 

1.2 Title II Services: The A/E Contractor shall also provide construction phase 

services. When applicable, construction services may include exhibit 

fabrication and installation. See paragraph 3.15 for required services. 

1.3 Background: The building was designed and built in 1976. The existing 

lobby is approximately 3558 square feet and will be increased in size by 

1318 square feet by incorporating an existing retail space adjacent to the 

lobby, and approximately 3000 square feet by adding and enclosing the east 

breezeway to the visitors' center. 

1.4 Objective: The purpose of this project is to renovate the existing main lobby 

to create a lobby and visitors center that will be used by CFPB employees and 

those doing business with the CFPB, as well as visitors to the facility. The 

visitor center portion of the lobby will serve as a "destination" for the public 

and visitors to the nation's capital. 

The conceptual design portion of this project will be a design competition 

among the three A&E task order contractors to create a design concept that 

will include the lobby, visitors' center, and the existing courtyard. The 

concept will emphasize the cohesiveness of these areas. The post-conceptual 

phase will include the programmatic development of the visitor center and 

1 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001197 
192 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

the comprehensive design of the new CFPB lobby and visitor center, and will 

not include the design of the courtyard. The A/E Contractor will be 

responsible for presenting the selected conceptual design and any required 

submissions to external reviewing authorities (such as National Capital 

Planning Commission, Commission of Fine Arts, District of Columbia Historic 

Preservation Office, etc.) as may be required. A/E Contractor shall prepare 

deliverables according to the respective requirements for each reviewing 

authority on behalf of the CFPB for the project design if requested or as is 

customary for a project of this type. It is the responsibility of the A/E 

Contractor to determine these requirements and to inform the COTR prior to 

prospectus development The final design shall be that of a typical class A 

building in Washington DC. 

The design provided shall take into account the following security standards 

and operational considerations: 

a) Physical boundaries to control ingress to and egress from non-public 

areas 

b) Screening of public before accessing restrooms 

c) Interior- specify tempered or high strength glass, if used 

d) Occupant Screening- screen all visitors and their property using an Xray and magnetometer. 

e) Create separate flow patterns for employees and visitors. 

f) Minimize queuing caused by screening. 

2.0 DOCUMENTS 

2.1 Applicable Documents: The Contractor shall comply with the current edition 

of all applicable practices, codes, methods and standards as prepared by 

technical societies and associations. In the event of conflict betvveen codes and 

standards of the organizations, the more stringent regulations shall govern. The 

A/E Contractor shall state applicable requirements of the standards or codes in 

the specifications, in addition to their general reference. These organizations 

shall include but may not be limited to: 

UFAS • Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 

ANSI - American National Standards Institute 

ASHRAE -American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air 

Conditioning Engineers 

IBC International Building Code 

2 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001198 
193 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFJCJAL USE ONLY 

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency 

FM - Factory Mutual 

NFPA - National Fire Protection Association 

NEC - National Electrical Code 

UL - Underwriter's Laboratories 

NSPC - National Standard Plumbing Code 

SIGAED- Smithsonian Institution Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition 

Design 

SIGUDE- Smithsonian Institution Guidelines for Universal Design of 

Exhibits 

OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administrative Standards 

2.2 Government Furnished Documents: OTS shall provide the following: Floor 

plan of the ground level; others as requested/required. 

3.0 STATEMENT OF SERVICES 

3.1 Document Review: The A/E Contractor shall review government furnished 

documents and perform site visits to gain an understanding of the scope of the 

project It should be noted that the OTS record drawings provided may not 

necessarily meet the current applicable codes and standards required. The A/E 

Contractor shall review existing architectural, mechanical1 structural, electrical, 

and other pertinent drawings of areas in the buildings affected by the design. 

3.1.1 Field measurements shall be made to veril'y all existing dimensions 

depicted on all drawings. 

3.1.2 Sufficient site investigations shall be made to confirm all existing 

conditions depicted on all drawings. 

3.2 Site Investigations: The A/E Contractor shall make sufficient site 

investigations to evaluate all existing conditions. The A/E Contractor shall 

obtain additional pertinent information, as needed, from the COTR to ensure the 

development leading to the completion of an efficient, comprehensive design. 

3.3 A/E Conceptual Design (Phase One): The Conceptual Design submission 

will be a design competition among the three A/E task order contractors. 

Each firm will present its conceptual design ideas individually in a meeting 

3 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001199 
194 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

forty-five ( 45} calendar days after award of the conceptual design task order. 

The design. ideas, and all material from each presentation will become the 

property of the OTS and CFPB. Each A/E contractor will be paid $20,000 for 

their efforts in generating and presenting their conceptual design. The 

presentations will be judged on style, constructability, appeal, and 

conformance with this SOW. The conceptual designs shall include a 

minimum of five (5) and a maximum of seven (7) sketches on C size paper, in 

color, showing multiple renderings of the new lobby, visitor center, and 

courtyard. 

3.3.1 Any portion of the Conceptual Design that will require review by 

external agencies such as NCPC (e.g. exterior work), shall be 

specifically noted. 

3.3.2 The plan will maximize the usable space for the new visitor's center 

while creating a Class A office building lobby appearance and 

incorporating security requirements. 

3.3.3 The plan will show the flow of employees and guests doing business 

with the CFPB, as well as visitors through the visitor center. 

3.3.4 The plan shall include locations for public awareness and educational 

including video media that would be part of the visitor center, 

security screening equipment, security desk, and the location of future 

restrooms. 

3.3.5 The courtyard will be part of the Conceptual Design and should 

include features to reduce our carbon footprint as well as a creating a 

cohesive inviting design. 

3.3.6 The Conceptual Design submission shall consist of subject headings 

that address the following: 

a. Sketches 

b. Diagrams 

c. Bubble diagrams of special relationships 

3.3. 7 A general approximation of construction costs. 

3.3.B The submission shall include one (1} unbound copy of the Conceptual 

Design & one (1} electronic copy . 

.4 Post-Conceptual Design Phase (Phase Two) - Phase Two will be the 

responsibility of the A/E Contractor that has been awarded the lobby project 

4 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001200 
195 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

The purpose and goal of this phase is to establish the programmatic 

requirements for the visitor center portion of this project This phase will 

establish guidance governing planning, development, management, and 

operation of the CFPB visitor center. Preliminary and final acceptance and 

buy-in of facilities and exhibits from inside and outside reviewing entities 

will he a goal during this phase. The primary purposes of the visitor center 

program are to provide information to the visiting public about the CFPB and 

its mission, as well as interpretive and educational information relating to 

consumer financial products and services. 

Submission requirements are as follows: 

3.4.1 The prospectus shall include the following: 

a. One (1) set of drawings, dry mounted on foam core boards 

b. Ten (10) copies of each prospectus and one (1) electronic copy 

3.4.2 The Exhibit Interpretive design submission shall include the 

following: 

a. One (1) unbound copy of the Exhibit Interpretive Design and one 

(1) electronic copy. 

b. Ten (1 OJ bound copies of the Exhibit Interpretive Design. 

3.4.3 The Exhibit Interpretive narrative shall consist of subject headings 

that address the goals, themes, and communication objectives as 

follows: 

a. Objectives/expected outcomes 

b. Interpretive themes and strategies 

c. Functional use of spacejplanjdiagram to include a numbered list 

of all proposed exhibits, subject, location, materials, mount type, 

and size 

d. Design narrative/criteria for designers 

e. Accessibility universal design and facility program 

Projected exhibits fabrication costs 

5of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001201 
196 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

g. Projected ongoing operation and maintenance costs 

3.4.4 The A/E Contractor shall provide the Prospectus and the Exhibit 

Interpretive Design at the end of the 30% Design submission and not 

any later to ensure the new design supports the Prospectus and the 

Exhibit Interpretive Design. 

3.5 A/E Design: The A/E Contractor shall provide necessary plans for demolition, 

architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical designs and specifications 

showing both existing and new systems and connections thereto. These designs 

shall include, but may not be limited to, the requirements discussed in 

paragraphs 3.5.1 - 3.5.5 below. Engineering calculations submission shall be 

provided pertaining to all designs. 

3.5.1 Demolition: 

a. All utility runs to be removed will be clearly identified on the 

drawings. 

b. Potential lay down areas and access points for debris removal, 

etc. 

3.5.2 Architectural Design: 

a. The new design will have to blend the existing design style with a 

newer design scheme that would be appropriate for a class A 

building in Washington, DC. 

3.5.3 Structural Design: 

a. The removal of any walls between the existing lobby, adjacent 

vacant retail space, and the east breezeway may require 

structural analysis. 

3.5.4 Mechanical Design: 

a. The new lobby and visitor center shall include appropriate 

restroom facilities and minimize conflict with routine 

ingress/egress of CFPB staff and those doing business with the 

CFPB. 

b. HVAC requirements will be included in, the design. 

3.5.5 Electrical Design: 

a. The lobby shall retain a walkthrough metal detector as well as an 

6 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001202 
197 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

x-ray machine and badge reading system (one turnstile portal). 

The Contractor will not be required to keep the existing machines 

if other more aesthetically-appropriate and functionally-similar 

units are available. The design will provide wiring runs for this 

equipment and other security notification systems remaining or 

added to the new design. 

b. The new lobby and visitor center will have displays, kiosks, and 

other educational media that will be updated regularly. The 

design must include means and methods to allow flexibility for 

the placement as well as utilities that may be required for these 

continually changing exhibits. 

3.6 NFPA Compliance: The A/E Contractor shall adopt NFPA requirements within 

their design or incorporate the requirements in the project documents to be the 

responsibility of the Construction Contractor. The Construction Contractor shall 

be responsible for hydraulic calculations and sizing sprinkler pipes accordingly. 

3.6.1 The A/E Contractor shall incorporate the following into the project 

documents to he the responsibility of the Construction Contractor: 

1. All exposed sprinkler piping shall be painted red. All 

unexposed sprinkler piping shall be labeled. 

2. Per NFPA 13, section 6.1.1, work plans shall he submitted for 

approval. The plan is to incorporate all applicable elements 

listed in NFPA 13, section 6-1.1.1. 

3. Per NFPA 13, Section 8-5, hydraulic design information signs 

4. All fire management devices shall be compatible with the 

existing fire alarm system. 

5. The following construction submittals shall be required from 

the Construction Contractor for a parallel review within 

OTS/CFPB: 

Indicate panel layout and wire terminations in the 

panel boxes. 

Indicate devices. 

Provide programming, and software copy, for existing 

display terminals. 

Provide floor plan graphics for rooms, or alterations 

7 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001203 
198 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

of existing programming. 

Provide field panel wiring diagrams and battery 

calculations. 

6. All conduits carrying Fire Management System wiring shall be 

labeled and dedicated. 

3.7 Energy Conservation: The A/E Contractor shall adopt current U.S. Federal 

Government requirements on energy efficiency, water conservation and the use 

of recovered materials. These requirements shall be incorporated into the 

design documents. These requirements include but are not limited to: 42 USC 

8253(a), 42 USC 15852, and E.O. 13514. The A/E Contractor shall determine if 

there are other requirements and applicable documents that are in effect at the 

time of award and report it to the Contracting Officer immediately. 

The A/E shall specify energy-efficient products that arc ENERGY STAR® 

qualified or meet energy efficiency specification set by the Department of 

Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). ENERGY STAR® and 

FEMP products can he found at: htt;p://www.energystar goy/products and 

http: //www.eere energy gov/femp /procurement/. 

3.8 Environmental Requirements- N/A 

3.9 Construction Cost Estimate and Schedule: A/E Contractor shall provide a 

construction cost estimate and schedule with the 100% design submittal. 

3.9.1 The construction estimates shall he broken down by items to include 

material costs, quantities, and equipment rentals; and labor hours and 

rates; overhead, profit and required bonds. The final cost estimate 

shall be furnished to the CFPB electronically. 

3.9.2 The construction schedule shall list all applicable tasks and show 

critical paths throughout the project time frame. The construction 

schedule shall be furnished to the CFPB electronically in Microsoft 

Project format. 

3.10 Drawings: 

3.10.1 All drawings shall be documented 24 inches high by 36 inches wide (DSize). 

3.10.2 All drawings shall have all margins approximately 'h inch wide. Final 

drawings shall be documented on reproducible polyester drafting film 

(i.e. mylar) and have left and right margins approximately 1 inches 

8 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001204 
199 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

wide, with all other margins approximately 'h inch wide. 

3.10.3 All drawings shall have the new CFPB's title block in the lower right 

hand corner and the A/E Contractor's title block on the adjacent left of 

CFPB's. 

3.10.4 All drawings shall be numbered with standard letter sequences 

applicable to each design discipline and labeled, "CFPB Lobby 

Renovation and Visitor Center". 

3.10.5 Each drawing sheet shall include the following statement next to the 

title block: 

"Notice: This document is and shall remain the property of the 

United States Government No information contained herein may 

be copied, disclosed, or used for any purpose without the written 

authorization of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." 

3.1 0.6 All final drawings, specifications and calculations shall he stamped by a 

Professional Engineer registered in Washington, D.C. 

3.10.7 All drawings generated under this Statement of Work shall be 100% 

reproducible on AutoCAD 2009. Along with those drawings, any block 

libraries shall be 100% reproducible as well. These drawings, along 

with respective block libraries, shall be provided to CFPB. 

3.11 Specifications: 

3.11.1 All specifications shall be printed on standard B 'h'' X 11" paper, using 

standard commercial section numbering. The documents shall be 

spiral bound, with division dividers. 

3.11.2 Specifications for construction shall be labeled "CFPB Lobby 

Renovation and Visitor Center". 

3.11.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide a summary "check-off" sheet of all 

construction contractors' submittals indicated in the specifications. 

3.11.4 Final specifications shall be furnished to the OTS electronically in the 

Microsoft Word 2007 format. 

3.12 Calculations: All engineering calculations for all disciplines at each submission 

shall be written on standard 8'h" X 11" paper. Engineering calculations for all 

disciplines shall be prepared andfor approved by the registered Professional 

Engineer of the appropriate discipline. The Professional Engineer shall be 

registered in Washington, D.C. 

9 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001205 
200 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

3.13 Meetings: 

3.13.1 Conceptual Design Meeting -A pre-conceptual design meeting will be 

held after the award of the A&E design competition. A date for 

conceptual design presentation will be determined. Contractor must 

be prepared for the presentation meeting no later than 45 calendar 

days after award of the design competition. 

3.13.2 Post-award Meeting- A post-award meeting will be held within ten 

(10) calendar days after the award of the Design task order. 

3.13.2 Design Review Meetings- A design review meeting will be held after 

each design submittal as required in paragraph 3.14 below. 

3.13.3 Meeting Minutes - The A/E Contractor shall take minutes of all 

meetings held relative to this task order. The format must be 

acceptable to the Contracting Officer (CO). Minutes must include the 

meeting date and time; agenda; meeting location; list of participants 

and their affiliations and telephone numbers; be fully descriptive of 

issues, problems and decisions made; and action items with names of 

responsible parties and deadlines. In addition, the minutes must 

include, as attachments, all exhibits and references distributed as 

handout materials, unless the materials are part of a formal 

submission. The A/E Contractor shall provide, via email, complete 

copies of all minutes to the CO and all attendees within 48 hours of the 

meeting. All challenges to the minutes will be reflected in a revised 

version prepared by the A/E Contractor. Copies of updated minutes 

shall be distributed to the CO and all attendees within 24 hours after 

change notice. 

3.14 Design Submittals: The following contractual periods of performance shall 

begin from the award date of the design task order. The A/E contractor shall 

provide 30%, 60%, 100% and bid document submittals, as well as any other 

submittals that may be required to insure that the design meets CFPB's 

requirements. CFPB shall respond with comments within 21 calendar days 

after the receipt of a submittal. At that time, a design review meeting shall be 

held to review the comments. The A/E shall respond in writing to each 

comment within 7 calendar days after the design review meeting. 

3.14.1 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 30% submittal on or before the 

45th calendar day after the task order award date. This submission 

shall include the following: 

a. One (1] unbound copy of the investigation report as staled in 3.2. 

10 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001206 
201 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

b. Six ( 6) copies of each drawing set to include the following: 

One (1) cover sheet 

60% completion of all demolition drawings 

All drawing sheets shall include all standard sections, 

details, schedules, diagrams, and legends, as well as, 

preliminary layout and development of new sections, 

details, schedules, diagrams, and legends 

d. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design at this date. 

e. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.2 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 60% submittal on or before the 

45th calendar day afterthe date CFPB comments on the 30% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each drawing to include the following: 

1 cover sheet 

100% completion of all demolition drawings 

all remaining drawing sheets which shall include 60 o/o 

completion of all plans, elevations, sections, details, 

schedules, diagrams, and legends. 

b. Six (6) copies of the specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design at this date. 

d. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 90% submittal on or before the 

30th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 60% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six (6) copies of each 90% complete drawing set. 

b. Six (6) copies of90% complete specifications. 

c. One [1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

11 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001207 
202 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

in the design. 

d. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.4 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 100% submittal on or before the 

30th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 90% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six (6) copies of each 100% complete drawing set. 

b. Six (6) copies of 100% complete specifications. 

a. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design: 

b. One (1) copy of construction cost estimate. 

e. One (1) copy of construction schedule. 

f. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.5 The A/E Contractor shall provide the bid document submittal on or 

before the 14th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 

100% submittal are received. This submission shall include the 

following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each bid document set. 

b. Six (6) copies of bid document specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design. 

d. Two sets of B-size drawings. 

e. A copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2006). 

3.14.6 As-built drawings: 

a. The A/E Contractor shall modify the Final drawings to reflect "asbuilt" conditions after construction is complete. These drawings, along 

with respective cell libraries, shall be provided electronically. 

3.15 Construction Phase (including Exhibit Fabrication & Installation) Services: 

3.15.1 The A/E Contractor shall provide submittal review services during the 

12 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001208 
203 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

construction process. The Contractor shall review and comment on all 

submittals for construction materials and/or shop drawings on or 

before the 7th calendar day after receipt of submittals. 

3.15.2 The A/E Contractor shall answer all construction contractor questions, 

within 48 hours in writing, relating to the design during the pre-bid 

process and the construction process. 

3.15.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide services in the form of weekly site 

visits to ensure proper construction practices and adherence to the 

design documents and intent. Field observation reports and nonconformance reports shall be submitted, as requested. The Project 

Manager, or someone closely associated with the design, shall attend 

weekly construction progress meetings. 

3.15.4 After construction is complete, the A/E Contractor shall inspect the 

construction site and assist in developing a punch list report This 

report shall be submitted on or before the 3rd day after the receipt of 

CFPB's request for inspection. 

3.16 Quality Control: 

3.16.1 The Contractor shall develop a quality plan. This plan shall be 

submitted as part of the contractor's technical proposal. The plan 

should outline the following: 

The management and organization of this project_ 

Intended key technical personnel, such as subcontractors, 

discipline managers, project manager, etc. 

Narrative describing product quality control. 

3.16.2 After the award of the task order, the A/E Contractor shall follow 

minimum standards of quality as follows: 

There shall be a consistency of key personnel throughout the 

project. 

All deliverables shall be routed through, reviewed and approved 

by the A/E Contractor project manager. · 

All mistakes, omissions or errors discovered during the 

construction process shall be rectified by the A/E Contractor. 

The A/E Contractor shall provide the government with additional 

design drawings, cost estimates and statements of work to make 

13 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001209 
204 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

field design corrections, should they become necessary. 

4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: 

4.1 Upon final payment, the government shall have sole ownership of the designs. 

The designs shall in no part he reproduced without written permission from the 

CFPB. 

4.2 The A/E Contractor shall submit all request for information in writing to the 

COTRand allow at least seven calendar days for the COTR to respond. 

14of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001210 
205 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPUES OR SERVICES PAGE 0 j PAGES 

IMPORTANT: Mali< all packages and papers with contract a•co""'oo:""'""'"""-·"c::"::::mbeo:mcc· __ ,------------=-:c:---"---1---'-1 __ 17 

__ 

I

;· CONTRACT NO. (If any) 

TOTS-D-10-0-0002 

04/20/2011 

!"· REOU!SITIONIRCrERtNCE NO. 

0002 \FAC-110053 

S. ISSUING OFFlCE (Addross cr;rresponrfflne<J to) 

OTS··WASHINGTON 

::;_ 700 G STREET NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20552 

a. NAME OF CONTRACfOR 

M. ARTHUR GENSLER JR. & ASSC INC. 

O'J'S-WASHING"J'ON 

b. STREET ADDRESS 

1700 G STREET NW 

c CI1Y 

WASHINGTON 

!d STATE! e.Z!PCOOE 

! DC j20552 

1:\, TYPE Of ORDER 

cc:;;;~;;;;;R:'-':~~:"'o:;;;;~;;;":;;;s----------------j;;~::~=~~:R: [K) b. DELIVERY 

2020 K STREET ~lh 

SUITE 200 

;em 

WASfliNGTON 

9. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA 

See Schedule 

11 BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION {CMci<.appropnalebax(esJ) 

[j a. SMALL ~ b. Ol HER THAN SMALL 

[_] d. WOMEN-OWNED 

0 c DISADVANTAGED 

0 f. EMERGING SMALL 

BUSINESS 

10. REQUISiTIONING OFFICE 

OTS~WASHINGTON 

0 >~-~~~::~; Destination 

1

12.F.O.S.PO!NT 

OWNED 

114 GOVERNMENT BIL NO 

o~(~NS~eE~C~TI~~-------,~7b.~~~C~EP~oA~NC~E~-----1~ 

Destinalion Destinalion 1

1S DELIVER TOF.O.B POINT I Hl. DISCOUNT TERMS 

ON OR BEFORE (Ds/8) 

4 5 Days After Award N/30 PROMPT PAY 

ITEM NO ,,, 

17.SCI1EOULE(See~ef<WRe}<lctiofls) 

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

(b) 

This task order will constitute Task Order 

Two under the referenced contract. The 

Contractor shall services ln 

accordance with attached statement of 

work (Attachment A) and -its proposaJ. date::i 

March 24, 2011. 

Continued 

QUANTITY 

ORDERED UNIT 

{c) (d) 

16 SHIPPING POINT 119. GROSS SHIPPING WEIGHT 

UNIT 

PRICE 

,,, AMOUNT 

'" 

QUAJ"HilY 

ACCEPTED 

(g) 

b=--------,;AF.o;ccc;roA<eson-;rcoei'T<cs----------------j$20, ooo.oo 

~:;.,~;5:;:~ b. STREET ADDRESS 

~···--'~"~ (orP.O.Sox) 

AKL/AoU/U"o' A"K' .Ob 

PO BOX 1328 

OTS@BPD. TREAS.GOV 

17(t) 

GRANO 

TOTAL 

h:-1,.,.,------------------,F= 'wv'"""'""-,-;'""""~·cnncucDE.------1$20' ooo .oo c.•..t~ARKERSBURG J 26106-1328 ~ 

22 UN!TEDSTATFSOF 

AMERICA BY (Sigrn>twe) 

oi.I.I1"HORIZEO FOR LOC-AL REf'ROOUCnOt-1 

PRE\IlOUSFOmOI\oNOTUSABLE 

CONFIDENTIAL 

Z3-NAME (Typed) 

ANDRF. D. ADAMS 

TITLC:.: CONTRAC:ING!OROERING OfFICER 

OPTIONAl fORM 3-47 m .. <I:XIOO) 

""''"'bodbyGSM'AA-IIlCFR53.1'3{•) 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001211 
206 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


IMPORTANT' Mark all packagss and !18-par!> wllh contrac! and/or ord9• numbt>rn 

DATEOFOROER ICONTRACTNO. 

04/20/2011 ITOTS-D-10-D-0002 

,,, 

0001 

~) 

dmin Office: 

OTS-WASHINGTON 

1700 G STREET NW 

WASH1NGTON DC 20552 

Accounting Info: 

OTS 41 0 8REXXXX- 2 011-610 0 0 l-OTS 8 9 0 0 00 0-2 5 41-0 

o oo oo o-xxx-xx -oTs 62 54 o 1-xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx 

Period of Performance: 12/11/2009 to 

09/30/2014 

Lobby Design Plan 

Continued ... 

TOTALCARRIEO FORWARD TO 1S1 PAGE (lfEM 17(Hl) 

AUTHORlZED FOR LOCAL REPOOlJCTION 

PREV!OUSEDIT!ONNO'tUSABl.E 

QUANTITY UNIT 

ORDERED 

(c) (d) 

CONFIDENTIAL 

UNIT 

PRICE 

,,, 

IOOOERNO 

10002 

20,000.00 

QUANTITY 

ACCEPTED 

(g) 

OPTIONAl FORM 348 !,... 'IXI<>SI 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001212 
207 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

SCHEDULE· CONTINUATION 

IMPORTANT Mark a!t pad<ages al>d papers with contfact and/or order l'ltJmtlers 

DATE OF ORDER ICONTRACTNO 

04/20/201] ITOTS-D-10-D-0002 

,,, SUPPUESJSERVICES 

., PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE ORDER NUMBER (B!.>OCK 

3) IS CLEARLY VIS::BLE ON ALL 

SHIPPING/SERVICE DOCUMENTS, CONTAINERS, AND 

INVOICES. FOR PAYMENT MID INVOICE 

QUESTIONS CONTACT ADMINISTRl,TIVE ACCOUNTS 

BRANCH AT- --. 

52.232-33 PAYMENT BY E:.ECTRONIC FUNDS 

TRANSFER-CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION 

PAYMENT (OCT 2003). 

RECEIVE A FREE E-MAIL NOTICE OF YOUR 

ELECTRONIC PAYMEN7. REGISTER AT 

H'l'TP:) /FMS. TREAS. GOV /PA 1D. 

ACCORDING TO 5?..204-7 CF.NTRAL CONTRACTOR 

REGISTRATION {APR 2008) 1 THE CONTRACTOR 

MUST REGISTER JN THE CCR DATABASE JI.ND 

MAIN7AIN REGISTRATION DURING PERFORMANCE 

AND THROUGH FINAL PAYMENT OJ:' THIS AWARD. 

INVOICES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY 

TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 21B, 

PAGE 1. PROTECTED MICROSOFT EXCEL FILES ARE 

THE PREFERRED FORMAT, HOWEVER, ADOBE 

ACROBAT PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT {PDF) AND 

MICROSOFT WORD ARE ALSO ACCEPTA31.E. 

The total amount of award: $20,000,00. The 

ob}jgation for this award is shown in box 

17 (i). 

ORDERED 

(c) (d) 

CONFIDENTIAL 

PRICE 

[o) 

I

OROERNO 

0002 

AMOUNT 

$0.00 

QUANTITY 

ACCEPTI';'O 

'" 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001213 
208 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Attachment A 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Statement of Work 

For Architectural/Engineering Design Services 

Renovation of Main Lobby /Courtyard Office of Thrift SupervisiOn Building 

]anumy 31, 2011 

1.0 SCOPE 

1.1 Title I Services: The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), on he half of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), requests the procurement of 

architectural and engineering (A/E) services under existing A/E task order 

contracts for the design of the renovation of the main lobby (and adjoining 

reclaimed retail space and breezeway) and exterior courtyard of the OTS 

building at 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552. The A/E Contractor 

shall perform survey and complete all design work, drawings, calculations, 

specifications, cost estimates, and schedules required to prepare the site in 

accordance with the guidelines established by this Statement of Work The 

A/E Contractor shall design a complete lobby facility including furnishings 

such that it will support employees and those doing business with CFPB. 

Additionally, the lobby shall include a visitor center that incorporates 

exhibits and educational elements for the puhlic. 

1.2 Title II Services: The A/E Contractor shall also provide construction phase 

services. When applicable, construction services may include exhibit 

fabrication and installation. See paragraph 3.15 for required services. 

1.3 Background: The building was designed and built in 1976. The existing 

lobby is approximately 3558 square feet and will be increased in size by 

1318 square feet by incorporating an existing retail space adjacent to the 

lobby, and approximately 3000 square feet by adding and enclosing the east 

breezeway to the visitors' center. 

1.4 Objective: The purpose of this project is to renovate the existing main lobby 

to create a lobby and visitors center that will be used by CFPB employees and 

those doing business with tbe CFPB, as well as visitors to the facility. The 

visitor center portion of the lobby will serve as a "destination" for the public 

and visitors to the nation's capital. 

The conceptual design portion of this project will be a design competition 

among the three A&E task order contractors to create a design concept that 

will include the lobby, visitors' center, and the existing courtyard. The 

concept will emphasize the cohesiveness of these areas. The post-conceptual 

phase will include the programmatic development of the visitor center and 

1 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001214 
209 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

the comprehensive design of the new CFPB lobby and visitor center, and will 

not include the design of the courtyard. The A/E Contractor will be 

responsible for presenting the selected conceptual design and any required 

submissions to external reviewing authorities (such as National Capital 

Planning Commission, Commission of Fine Arts, District of Columbia Historic 

Preservation Office, etc.) as may be required. A/E Contractor shall prepare 

deliverables according to the respective requirements for each reviewing 

authority on behalf of the CFPB for the project design if requested or as is 

customary for a project of this type. It is the responsibility of the A/E 

Contractor to determine these requirements and to inform the COTR prior to 

prospectus development The final design shall be that of a typical class A 

building in Washington DC. 

The design provided shall take into account the following security standards 

and operational considerations: 

a) Physical boundaries to control ingress to and egress from non-public 

areas 

b) Screening of public before accessing restrooms 

c) Interior- specify tempered or high strength glass, if used 

d) Occupant Screening- screen all visitors and their property using an X· 

ray and magnetometer. 

e) Create separate flow patterns for employees and visitors. 

f) Minimize queuing caused by screening. 

2.0 DOCUMENTS 

2.1 Applicable Documents: The Contractor shall comply with the current edition 

of all applicable practices, codes, methods and standards as prepared by 

technical societies and associations. In the event of conflict between codes and 

standards of the organizations, the more stringent regulations shall govern. The 

A/E Contractor shall state applicable requirements of the standards or codes in 

the specifications, in addition to their general reference. These organizations 

shall include but may not be limited to: 

UFAS · Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 

ANSI · American National Standards Institute 

ASHRAE ·American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air 

Conditioning Engineers 

IBC International Building Code 

2 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_ 001215 
210 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency 

FM - Factory Mutual 

NFPA - National Fire Protection Association 

NEC - National Electrical Code 

UL - Underwriter's Laboratories 

NSPC - National Standard Plumbing Code 

SlGAED- Smithsonian Institution Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition 

Design 

SIGUDE- Smithsonian Institution Guidelines for Universal Design of 

Exhibits 

OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administrative Standards 

2.2 Government Furnished Documents: OTS shall provide the following: Floor 

plan of the ground level; others as requested/required. 

3,0 STATEMENT OF SERVICES 

3.1 Document Review: The A/E Contractor shall review government furnished 

documents and perform site visits to gain an understanding of the scope of the 

project It should be noted that the OTS record drawings provided may not 

necessarily meet the current applicable codes and standards required. The A/E 

Contractor shall review existing architectural, mechanical, structural, electrical, 

and other pertinent drawings of areas in the buildings affected by the design. 

3.1.1 Field measurements shall be made to verify all existing dimensions 

depicted on all drawings. 

3.1.2 Sufficient site investigations shall be made to confirm all existing 

conditions depicted on all drawings. 

3.2 Site Investigations: The A/E Contractor shall make sufficient site 

investigations to evaluate all existing conditions. The A/E Contractor shall 

obtain additional pertinent information, as needed, from the COTR to ensure the 

development leading to the completion of an efficient, comprehensive design. 

3.3 A/E Conceptual Design (Phase One): The Conceptual Design submission 

will be a design competition among the three A/E task order contractors. 

Each firm will present its conceptual design ideas individually in a meeting 

3 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001216 
211 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

forty-five ( 45} calendar days after award of the conceptual design task order. 

The design, ideas, and all material from each presentation will become the 

property of the OTS and CFPB. Each A/E contractor will be paid $20,000 for 

their efforts in generating and presenting their conceptual design. The 

presentations will be judged on style, constructability, appeal, and 

conformance with this SOW. The conceptual designs shall include a 

minimum of five (5) and a maximum of seven (7) sketches on C size paper, in 

color, showing multiple renderings of the new lobby, visitor center, and 

courtyard. 

3.3.1 Any portion of the Conceptual Design that will require review by 

external agencies such as NCPC (e.g. exterior work), shall be 

specifically noted. 

3.3.2 The plan will maximize the usable space for the new visitor's center 

while creating a Class A office building lobby appearance and 

incorporating security requirements. 

3.3.3 The plan will show the flow of employees and guests doing business 

with the CFPB, as well as visitors through the visitor center. 

3.3.4 The plan shall include locations for public awareness and educational 

including video media that would be part of the visitor center, 

security screening equipment, security desk, and the location of future 

restrooms. 

3.3.5 The courtyard will be part of the Conceptual Design and should 

include features to reduce our carbon footprint as well as a creating a 

cohesive inviting design. 

3.3.6 The Conceptual Design submission shall consist of subject headings 

that address the following: 

a. Sketches 

b. Diagrams 

c. Bubble diagrams of special relationships 

3.3. 7 A general approximation of construction costs. 

3.3.8 The submission shall include one (1) unbound copy of the Conceptual 

Design & one (1) electronic copy. 

3.4 Post-Conceptual Design Phase (Phase Two)- Phase Two will be the 

responsibility of the A/E Contractor that has been awarded the lobby project 

4 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001217 
212 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

The purpose and goal of this phase is to establish the programmatic 

requirements for the visitor center portion of this project. This phase will 

establish guidance governing planning, development, management, and 

operation of the CFPB visitor center. Preliminary and final acceptance and 

buy-in of facilities and exhibits from inside and outside reviewing entities 

will be a goal during this phase. The primary purposes of the visitor center 

program are to provide information to the visiting public about the CFPB and 

its mission, as well as interpretive and educational information relating to 

consumer financial products and services. 

Submission requirements are as follows: 

3.4.1 The prospectus shall include the following: 

a. One (1) set of drawings, dry mounted on foam core boards 

b. Ten (10) copies of each prospectus and one (1) electronic copy 

3.4.2 The Exhibit Interpretive design submission shall include the 

following: 

a. One (1) unbound copy of the Exhibitlnterpretive Design and one 

(1) electronic copy. 

b. Ten (10) bound copies of the Exhibit Interpretive Design. 

3.4.3 The Exhibit Interpretive narrative shall consist of subject headings 

that address the goals, themes, and communication objectives as 

follows: 

a. Objectives/expected outcomes 

b. Interpretive themes and strategies 

c. Functional use of space/plan/diagram to include a numbered list 

of all proposed exhibits, subject, location, materials, mount type, 

and size 

d. Design narrative/criteria for designers 

c. Accessibility universal design and facility program 

f. Projected exhibits fabrication costs 

5of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001218 
213 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

g. Projected ongoing operation and maintenance costs 

3.4.4 The A/E Contractor shall provide the Prospectus and the Exhibit 

Interpretive Design at the end of the 30% Design submission and not 

any later to ensure the new design supports the Prospectus and the 

Exhibit Interpretive Design. 

3.5 A/E Design: The A/E Contractor shall provide necessary plans for demolition, 

architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical designs and specifications 

showing both existing and new systems and connections thereto. These designs 

shall include, but may not be limited to, the requirements discussed in 

paragraphs 3.5.1 - 3.5.5 below. Engineering calculations submission shall be 

provided pertaining to all designs. 

3.5.1 Demolition: 

a. All utility runs to be removed will be clearly identified on the 

drawings. 

b. Potential lay down areas and access points for debris removal, 

etc. 

3.5.2 Architectural Design: 

a. The new design will have to blend the existing design style with a 

newer design scheme that would be appropriate for a class A 

building in Washington, DC. 

3.5.3 Structural Design: 

a. The removal of any walls between the existing lobby, adjacent 

vacant retail space, and the east breezeway may require 

structural analysis. 

3.5.4 Mechanical Design: 

a. The new lobby and visitor center shall include appropriate 

restroom facilities and minimize conflict with routine 

ingress/egress of CFPB staff and those doing business with the 

CFPB. 

b: HVAC requirements will be included in the design. 

3.5.5 Electrical Design: 

a. The lobby shall retain a walk through metal detector as well as an 

6of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_GFPB_BLDG_001219 
214 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

x-ray machine and badge reading system (one turnstile portal). 

The Contractor will not be required to keep the existing machines 

if other more aesthetically-appropriate and functionally-similar 

units are available. The design will provide wiring runs for this 

equipment and other security notification systems remaining or 

added to the new design. 

b. The new lobby and visitor center will have displays, kiosks, and 

other educational media that will be updated regularly. The 

design must include means and methods to allow flexibility for 

the placement as well as utilities that may be required for these 

continually changing exhibits. 

3.6 NFPA Compliance: The A/E Contractor shall adopt NFPA requirements within 

their design or incorporate the requirement., in the project documents to be the 

responsibility of the Construction Contractor. The Construction Contractor shall 

be responsible for hydraulic calculations and sizing sprinkler pipes accordingly. 

3.6.1 The A/E Contractor shall incorporate the following into the project 

documents to be the responsibility of the Construction Contractor: 

1. All exposed sprinkler piping shall be painted red. All 

unexposed sprinkler piping shall be labeled. 

2. Per NFPA 13, section 6.1.1, work plans shall be submitted for 

approvaL The plan is to incorporate all applicable elements 

listed in NFPA 13, section 6-1.1.1. 

3. Per NFPA 13, Section 8-5, hydraulic design information signs 

4. All fire management devices shall be compatible with the 

existing fire alarm system. 

5. The following construction submittals shall be required from 

the Construction Contractor for a parallel review within 

OTS/CFPB: 

lndicate panel layout and wire terminations in the 

panel boxes. 

Indicate devices. 

Provide programming, and software copy, for existing 

display terminals. 

Provide floor plan graphics for rooms, or alterations 

7 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_ CFPB_BLDG _ 001220 
215 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

of existing programming. 

Provide field panel wiring diagrams and battery 

calculations. 

6. All conduits carrying Fire Management System wiring shall be 

labeled and dedicated. 

3. 7 Energy Conservation: The A/E Contractor shall adopt current U.S. Federal 

Government requirements on energy efficiency, water conservation and the use 

of recovered materials. These requirements shall be incorporated into the 

design documents. These requirements include but are not limited to: 42 USC 

8253(a), 42 USC 15852, and E.O. 13514. The AfE Contractor shall determine if 

there are other requirements and applicable documents that are in effect at the 

time of award and report it to the Contracting Officer immediately. 

The A/E shall specifY energy-efficient products that are ENERGY STAR® 

qualified or meet energy efficiency specification set by the Department of 

Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). ENERGY STAR® and 

FEMP products can be found at: http://wwwenergystar.goy/products and 

http://www.eere.energy goy/femp/procurement/. 

3.8 Environmental Requirements- N/ A 

3.9 Construction Cost Estimate and Schedule: A/E Contractor shall provide a 

construction cost estimate and schedule with the 100% design submittal. 

3.9.1 The construction estimates shall be broken down by items to include 

material costs, quantities, and equipment rentals; and labor hours and 

rates; overhead, profit and required bonds. The final cost estimate 

shall be furnished to the CFPB electronically. 

3.9.2 The construction schedule shall list all applicable tasks and show 

critical paths throughout the project time frame. The construction 

schedule shall be furnished to the CFPB electronically in Microsoft 

Project format. 

3.10 Drawings: 

3.10.1 All drawings shall be documented 24 inches high by36 inches wide (DSize). 

3.10.2 All drawings shall have all margins approximately 'h inch wide. Final 

drawings shall be documented on reproducible polyester drafting film 

(i.e. mylar) and have left and right margins approximately 1 inches 

8 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG __ 001221 
216 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

wide, with all other margins approximately 'h inch wide. 

3.10.3 All drawings shall have the new CFPB's title block in the lower right 

hand corner and the A/E Contractor's title block on the adjacent left of 

CFPB's. 

3.10.4 All drawings shall be numbered with standard letter sequences 

applicable to each design discipline and labeled, "CFPB Lobby 

Renovation and Visitor Center". 

3.10.5 Each drawing sheet shall include the following statement next to the 

title block: 

"Notice: This document is and shall remain the property of the 

United States Government No information contained herein may 

be copied, disclosed, or used for any purpose without the written 

authorization of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." 

3.10.6 All final drawings, specifications and calculations shall be stamped by a 

Professiona1 Engineer registered in Washington, D.C. 

3.10.7 All drawings generated under this Statement ofWorkshall be 100% 

reproducible on AutoCAD 2009. Along with those drawings, any block 

libraries shall be 100% reproducible as well. These drawings, along 

with respective block libraries, shall be provided to CFPB. 

3.11 Specifications: 

3.11.1 All specifications shall be printed on standard 8 'h" X 11" paper, using 

standard commercial section numbering. The documents shall be 

spiral bound, with division dividers. 

3.11.2 Specifications for construction shall be labeled "CFPB Lobby 

Renovation and Visitor Center". 

3.11.3 Tbe A/E Contractor shall provide a summary "check-off' sheet of all 

construction contractors' submittals indicated in the specifications. 

3.11.4 Final specifications shall be furnished to the OTS electronically in the 

Microsoft Word 2007 format. 

3.12 Calculations: All engineering calculations for all disciplines at each submission 

shall be written on standard 8'h'' X 11" paper. Engineering calculations for all 

disciplines shall be prepared and/ or approved by the registered Professional 

Engineer of the appropriate discipline. The Professional Engineer shall be 

registered in Washington, D.C. 

9 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_ CFPB _BLDG_ 001222 
217 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

3.13 Meetings: 

3.13.1 Conceptual Design Meeting-A pre-conceptual design meeting will be 

held after the award of the A&E design competition. A date for 

conceptual design presentation will be determined. Contractor must 

be prepared for the presentation meeting no later than 45 calendar 

days after award of the design competition. 

3.13.2 Post-award Meeting- A post-award meeting will be held within ten 

(10) calendar days after the award of the Design task order. 

3.13.2 Design Review Meetings- A design review meeting will be held after 

each design submittal as required in paragraph 3.14 below. 

3.13.3 Meeting Minutes - The A/E Contractor shall take minutes of all 

meetings held relative to this task order. The format must be 

acceptable to the Contracting Officer (CO). Minutes must include the 

meeting date and time; agenda; meeting location; list of participants 

and their affiliations and telephone numbers; be fully descriptive of 

issues, problems and decisfons made; and action items with names of 

responsible parties and deadlines. In addition, the minutes must 

include, as attachments, all exhibits and references distributed as 

handout materials, unless the materials are part of a formal 

submission. The A/E Contractor shall provide, via email, complete 

copies of all minutes to the CO and all attendees within 48 hours of the 

meeting, All challenges to the minutes will be reflected in a revised 

version prepared by the A/E Contractor. Copies of updated minutes 

shall be distributed to the CO and all attendees within 24 hours after 

change notice. 

3.14 Design Submittals: The following contractual periods of performance shall 

begin from the award date of the design task order. The A/E contractor shall 

provide 30%, 60%, 100% and bid document submittals, as well as any other 

submittals that may be required to insure that the design meets CFPB's 

requirements. CFPB shall respond with comments within 21 calendar days 

after the receipt of a submittaL At that time, a design review meeting shall be 

held to review the comments. The A/E shall respond in writing to each 

comment within 7 calendar days after the design review meeting. 

3.14.1 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 30% submittal on or before the 

45th calendar day after the task order award date. This submission 

shall include the following: 

a. One (1) unbound copy of the investigation report as stated in 3.2. 

10 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001223 
218 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

b. Six (6) copies of each drawing set to include tbe following: 

One (1) cover sheet 

60% completion of all demolition drawings 

All drawing sheets shall include all standard sections, 

details, schedules, diagrams, and legends, as well as, 

preliminary layout and development of new sections, 

details, schedules, diagrams, and legends 

d. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design at this date. 

e. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.2 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 60% submittal on or before the 

45th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 30% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six (6) copies of each drawing to include the following: 

1 cover sheet 

100% completion of all demolition drawings 

all remaining drawing sheets which shall include 60 % 

completion of all plans, elevations, sections, details, 

schedules, diagrams, and legends. 

b. Six (6) copies of the specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design at this date. 

d. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 90% submittal on or before the 

30th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 60% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each 90% complete drawing set 

h. Six ( 6) copies of 90% complete specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

11 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_ BLDG_001224 
219 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

in the design. 

d. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R [AutoCad 2009}. 

3.14.4 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 100% submittal on or before the 

30th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 90% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six (6) copies of each 100% complete drawing set. 

b. Six (6) copies oflOO% complete specifications. 

a. One (1} copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design. 

b. One (1} copy of construction cost estimate. 

e. One (1) copy of construction schedule. 

f. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (Auto Cad 2009j. 

3.14.5 The A/E Contractor shall provide the bid document submittal on or 

before the 14th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 

100% submittal are received. This submission shall include the 

following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each bid document set 

b. Six (6) copies of bid document specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design. 

d. Two sets of B-size drawings. 

e. A copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2006). 

3.14.6 As-built drawings: 

a. The A/E Contractor shall modify the Final drawings to reflect "asbuilt" conditions after construction is complete. These drawings, along 

with respective cell libraries, shall be provided electronically. 

3.15 Construction Phase (including Exhibit Fabrication & Installation) Services: 

3.15.1 The A/E Contractor shall provide submittal review services during the 

12 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_GFPB_BLDG_001225 
220 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

construction process. The Contractor shall review and comment on all 

submittals for construction materials and/or shop drawings on or 

before tbe 7th calendar day after receipt of submittals. 

3.15.2 The A/E Contractor shall answer all construction contractor questions, 

within 48 hours in writing, relating to the design during tbe pre-bid 

process and the construction process. 

3.15.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide services in tbe form of weekly site 

visits to ensure proper construction practices and adherence to the 

design documents and intent Field observation reports and nonconformance reports shall be submitted, as requested. The Project 

Manager, or someone closely associated witb the design, shall attend 

weekly construction progress meetings. 

3.15.4 After construction is complete, the A/E Contractor shall inspect the 

construction site and assist in developing a punch list report. This 

report shall be submitted on or before the 3rd day after the receipt of 

CFPB's request for inspection. 

3.16 Quality Control: 

3.16.1 The Contractor shall develop a quality plan. This plan shall be 

submitted as part of the contractor's technical proposal. The plan 

should outline the following: 

The management and organization of this project 

Intended key technical personnel, such as subcontractors, 

discipline managers, project manager, etc. 

Narrative describing product quality control. 

3.16.2 After the award of the task order, the A/E Contractor shall follow 

minimum standards of quality as follows: 

There shall be a consistency of key personnel throughout the 

project. 

All deliverables shall he routed through, reviewed and approved 

by tbe A/E Contractor project manager. 

All mistakes, omissions or errors discovered during the 

construction process shall he rectified by the A/E Contractor. 

The A/E Contractor shall provide tbe government with additional 

design drawings, cost estimates and statements of work to make 

13 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001226 
221 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

field design corrections, should they become necessary. 

4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: 

4.1 Upon final payment, the government shall have sole ownership of the designs. 

The designs shall in no part be reproduced without written permission from the 

CFPB. 

4.2 The A/E Contractor shall submit all request for information in writing to the 

COTR and allow at least seven calendar days for the COTR to respond. 

14 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB_BLDG_ 001227 
222 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


1. DATE OF ORDER 

04/20/2011 

0002 

5 ISSLIING OPFICE {Addtess ccrre:;pcndence to) 

OTS-li1ASHJNGTON 

1700 G STREET NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20552 

a. NAME OF CONTRACTOR 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

4. REOUIS!TIONIREF£RENCE NO 

FAC- 110054 OTS-i\JASHINGTON 

b.STHEETI\OORESS 

1700 G STREET NW 

c. CITY 

WASHINGTON 

17 

d.STATE e.Z!PCOOE 

DC 20552 

KARN CHARUHAS CHAPMAN & TWOHEY PC 8. TYPE OF ORDER 

21 MAILtNVO!CE TO: 

OTS@BPD. TREAS.GOV 

ONIT 

PRICE 

,,, 

i:XJ b DELIVERY 

AMOUNT 

10 

ACCEPTED 

"' 

17(i) 

GRAND 

lOTAL 

\T;:m-----------------;r;mm--,-;;C!WC5D,-------JS20, 

PARKERSBURG 

000.00 ~ 

22. UNITEDSTATESOF 

AMERICA SY (Signal'"") 

AU'fHORIZf:O FOR LOCAl REPROOt.ICT!ON 

PREVlO!JSE)lTJONI«lTUSAillt 

wv 26106-1328 

23.NAME (Typed} 

ANDRE D. ADAMS 

TITLE: CONTRACTING/ORDERING OFfiCER 

CONFIDENTIAL 

OPnONAL FORM 347 iThw •rn>OOl 

""'"""""t>rGSM'"""CflU;1.2><(o) 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001228 
223 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL i.JSE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

SCHEDULE • CONTINUATION 

IMPORTANT· Mali< all pad<age!> ana papers will! contract ar>dlo· nrdftr numbers 

DATE OF ORDER !CONTRACT NO 

04/20/2011 jTOTS-D-10-D-0003 

,,, 

COOl 

,,, Admin Office: 

OTS-IVASHINGTON 

1700 G STREET NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20552 

Accour.ling Info: 

OTS 41 0 8REXXXX/ 2 011/61 DO 01/ OTS8 900 000/2 541/00 

0 0 0 00 0 /XXX/XX} OTS 62 54 0 1/XXXXXXXXX/XXXXXXXXX 

Period of Performance: 12/11/2009 ::a 

09/30/2014 

Lobby Design Plan 

Continued ... 

CONFIDENTIAL 

PRICE 

,,, 

jORDERNO. 

jOOO?. 

20,000.00 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001229 
224 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES 

SCHEDULE • CONTINUATION 

IMPORTANT· Mart<. all p.acllages and p.apers v..i!h comract andlorotrlernumtmrn 

DATE Of ORDER 'CONTRACT NO. 

04/20/2011 jTOTS-D-10-D-0003 

,,, SUPPLI!':SJSERVICES 

{b) 

PLEASE ENSURE THAT TEE ORDER NUMBER {BLOCK 

3) IS CLEARLY VISIBLE ON ALL 

SHIPPING/SERVICE DOCUMENTS, CONTAINERS, AND 

I::WOICES. FOR PAYMENT AND IN'"VOICE 

QUESTIONS CONTACT ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTS 

BRANCH AT - .-:. 

52.232-33 PAYMENT BY ELECTRONIC FUNDS 

TRANSFER-CENTRAL CONTRACTOR RF.GISTRATION 

PAYMENT (OCT 2'003). 

RF.CEIVE A FREE E-MAIL NOTICE OF YOUR 

E.LECTRONIC PAYMENT. REGISTER AT 

HTTP: //FMS. TREAS.GOV/PAIO. 

ACCORDING TO 52.204-7 CF.NTRAl. CONTRACTOR 

REGISTRATION (APR 2008), THE CONTRACTOR 

MJST REGISTER IN THE CCR DATABASE AND 

MAINTAIN REGISTRATION DURING PERFORMANCE 

!AND THROUGH FIKAL PAYMENT OF 7UIS AWARD. 

INVOICES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALI,Y 

TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS SHOWN IN Bi,QCK 21B, 

PAGE 1. PROTECTED MICROSOFT EXCEL FILES ARE 

THE PREFERRED FORMAT, HOWEVER, ADOBE 

fACROBAT PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT (PDF) AND 

MICROSOE'T WORD ARE ALSO ACCEPTABLE. 

The total amount of award: $20,000.00. The 

obl:.gation for this award is shown in box 

17 (.!,_). 

CONFIDENTIAL 

PRICE 

,,, 

/ORDE:RNO. 

!0002 

,,, 

HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001230 
225 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Attachment A 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Statement of Work 

For Architectural/Engineering Design Services 

Renovation of Main Lobby /Courtyard Office of Thrift SupervisiOn Building 

January 31, 2011 

1.0 SCOPE 

1.1 Title I Services: The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), on behalf of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), requests the procurement of 

architectural and engineering (A/E) services under existing A/E task order 

contracts for the design of the renovation of the main lobby (and adjoining 

reclaimed retail space and breezeway) and exterior courtyard of the OTS 

building at 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552. The A/E Contractor 

shall perform survey and complete all design work, drawings, calculations, 

specifications, cost estimates, and schedules required to prepare the site in 

accordance with the guidelines established by this Statement of Work. The 

A/E Contractor shall design a complete lohhy facility including furnishings 

such that it will support employees and those doing business with CFPB. 

Additionally, the lobby shall include a visitor center that incorporates 

exhibits and educational elements for the public. 

1.2 Title II Services: The A/E Contractor shall also provide construction phase 

services. When applicable, construction services may include exhibit 

fabrication and installation. See paragraph 3.15 for required services. 

1.3 Background: The building was designed and built in 1976. The existing 

lobby is approximately 3558 square feet and will be increased in size by 

1318 square feet by incorporating an existing retail space adjacent to the 

lobby, and approximately 3000 square feet by adding and enclosing the east 

breezeway to the visitors' center. 

1.4 Objective: The purpose of this project is to renovate the existing main lobby 

to create a lobby and visitors center that will be used by CFPB employees and 

those doing business with the CFPB, as well as visitors to the facility. The 

visitor center portion of the lobby will serve as a "destination" for the public 

and visitors to the nation's capital. 

The conceptual design portion of this project will be a design competition 

among the three A&E task order contractors to create a design concept that 

will include the lobby, visitors' center, and the existing courtyard. The 

concept will emphasize the cohesiveness of these areas. The post-conceptual 

phase will include the programmatic development of the visitor center imd 

1 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001231 
226 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

the comprehensive design of the new CFPB lobby and visitor center, and will 

not include the design of the courtyard. The A/E Contractor will be 

responsible for presenting the selected conceptual design and any required 

submissions to external reviewing authorities (such as National Capital 

Planning Commission, Commission of Fine Arts, District of Columbia Historic 

Preservation Office, etc.) as may he required. A/E Contractor shall prepare 

deliverables according to the respective requirements for each reviewing 

authority on behalf of the CFPB for the project design if requested or as is 

customary for a project of this type. It is the responsibility of the A/E 

Contractor to determine these requirements and to inform the COTR prior to 

prospectus development. The final design shall be that of a typical class A 

building in Washington DC. 

The design provided shall take into account the following security standards 

and operational considerations: 

a) Physical boundaries to control ingress to and egress from non-public 

areas 

b) Screening of public before accessing restrooms 

c) Interior- specify tempered or high strength glass, if used 

d) Occupant Screening- screen all visitors and their property using an Xray and magnetometer. 

e) Create separate flow patterns for employees and visitors. 

f) Minimize queuing caused by screening. 

2.0 DOCUMENTS 

2.1 Applicable Documents: The Contractor shall comply with the current edition 

of all applicable practices, codes, methods and standards as prepared by 

technical societies and associations. In the event of conflict between codes and 

standards of the organizations, the more stringent regulations shall govern. The 

A/E Contractor shall state applicable requirements of the standards or codes in 

the specifications, in addition to their general reference. These organizations 

shall include but may not be limited to: 

UFAS -Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 

ANSI - American National Standards Institute 

ASH RAE -American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air 

Conditioning Engineers 

!BC - International Building Code 

2 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG 001232 
227 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency 

FM - Factory Mutual 

NFPA - National Fire Protection Association 

NEC - National Electrical Code 

UL - Underwriter's Laboratories 

NSPC - National Standard Plumbing Code 

SIGAED- Smithsonian Institution Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition 

Design 

SIGUDE- Smithsonian Institution Guidelines for Universal Design of 

Exhibits 

OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administrative Standards 

2.2 Government Furnished Documents: OTS shall provide the following: Floor 

plan of the ground level; others as requested/required. 

3.0 STATEMENT OF SERVICES 

3.1 Document Review: The A/E Contractor shall review government furnished 

documents and perform site visits to gain an understanding of the scope of the 

project. It should be noted that the OTS record drawings provided may not 

necessarily meet the current applicable codes and standards required. The A/E 

Contractor shaH review existing architectural, mechanical, structural, electrical, 

and other pertinent drawings of areas in the buildings affected by the design. 

3.1.1 Field measurements shall be made to verifY all existing dimensions 

depicted on all drawings. 

3.1.2 Sufficient site investigations shall be made to confirm all existing 

conditions depicted on all drawings. 

3.2 Site Investigations: The A/E Contractor shall make sufficient site 

investigations to evaluate all existing conditions. The A/E Contractor shall 

obtain additional pertinent information, as needed, from the COTR to ensure the 

development leading to the completion of an efficient, comprehensive design. 

3.3 A/E Conceptual Design (Phase One): The Conceptual Design submission 

will be a design competition among the three A/E task order contractors. 

Each firm will present its conceptual design ideas individually in a meeting 

3of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001233 
228 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

forty-five ( 45) calendar days after award of the conceptual design task order. 

The design, ideas, and all material from each presentation will become the 

property of the OTS and CFPB. Each A/E contractor will be paid $20,000 for 

their efforts in generating and presenting their conceptual design. The 

presentations will be judged on style, constructability, appeal, and 

conformance with this SOW. The conceptual designs shall include a 

minimum of five (5] and a maximum of seven (7) sketches on C size paper, in 

color, showing multiple renderings of the new lobby, visitor center, and 

courtyard. 

3.3.1 Any portion of the Conceptual Design that will require review by 

external agencies such as NCPC (e.g. e;x1:erior work), shall be 

specifically noted. 

3.3.2 The plan will maximize the usable space for the new visitor's center 

while creating a Class A office building lobby appearance and 

incorporating security requirements. 

3.3.3 The plan will show the flow of employees and guests doing business 

with the CFPB, as well as visitors through the visitor center. 

3.3.4 The plan shall include locations for public awareness and educational 

including video media that would be part of the visitor center, 

security screening equipment, security desk, and the location of future 

restrooms. 

3.3.5 The courtyard will be part of the Conceptual Design and should 

include features to reduce our carbon footprint as well as a creating a 

cohesive inviting design. 

3.3.6 The Conceptual Design submission shall consist of subject headings 

that address the following: 

a. Sketches 

b. Diagrams 

c. Bubble diagrams of special relationships 

3.3. 7 A general approximation of construction costs. 

3.3.8 The submission shall include one (1) unbound copy of the Conceptual 

Design & one (1) electronic copy. 

3.4 Post-Conceptual Design Phase (Phase Two) Phase Two will be the 

responsibility of the A/E Contractorthat has been awarded the lobby project. 

4 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001234 
229 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

The purpose and goal of this phase is to establish the programmatic 

requirements for the visitor center portion of this project This phase will 

establish guidance governing planning, development, management, and 

operation of the CFPB visitor center. Preliminary and final acceptance and 

buy-in of facilities and exhibits from inside and outside reviewing entitles 

will be a goal during this phase. The primary purposes of the visitor center 

program are to provide information to the visiting public about the CFPB and 

its mission, as well as interpretive and educational information relating to 

consumer financial products and services. 

Submission requirements are as follows: 

3.4.1 The prospectus shall include the following: 

a. One (1) set of drawings, dry mounted on foam core boards 

b. Ten (1 0) copies of each prospectus and one (1) electronic copy 

3.4.2 The Exhibit Interpretive design submission shall include the 

following: 

a. One (1) unbound copy of the Exhibit Interpretive Design and one 

(1) electronic copy. 

b. Ten (1 0) bound copies of the Exhibit Interpretive Design. 

3.4.3 The Exhibit Interpretive narrative shall consist of subject headings 

that address the goals, themes, and communication objectives as 

follows: 

a. Objectives/expected outcomes 

b. Interpretive themes and strategies 

c. Functional use of space/plan/diagram to include a numbered list 

of all proposed exhibits, subject, location, materials, mount type, 

and size 

d. Design narrative/criteria for designers 

e. Accessibility universal design and facility program 

f. Projected exhibits fabrication costs 

5 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB_BLDG _ 001235 
230 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

g. Projected ongoing operation and maintenance costs 

3.4.4 The A/E Contractor shall provide the Prospectus and the Exhibit 

Interpretive Design at the end of the 30% Design submission and not 

any later to ensure the new design supports the Prospectus and the 

Exhibit Interpretive Design. 

3.5 A/E Design: The A/E Contractor shall provide necessary plans for demolition, 

architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical designs and specifications 

showing both existing and new systems and connections thereto. These designs 

shall include, but may not be limited to, the requirement• discussed in 

paragraphs 3.5.1 - 3.5.5 below. Engineering calculations submission shall be 

provided pertaining to all designs. 

3.5.1 Demolition: 

a. All utility runs to be removed will be clearly identified on the 

drawings. 

b. Potential lay down areas and access points for debris removal, 

etc. 

3.5.2 Architectural Design: 

a. The new design will have to blend the existing design style with a 

newer design scheme that would be appropriate for a class A 

building in Washington, DC. 

3.5.3 Structural Design: 

a. The removal of any walls between the existing lobby, adjacent 

vacant retail space, and the east breezeway may require 

structural analysis. 

3.5.4 Mechanical Design: 

a. The new lobby and visitor center shall include appropriate 

restroom faci1ities and minimize conflict with routine 

ingress/ egress of CFPB staff and those doing business with the 

CFPB. 

b. HVAC requirements will be included in the design. 

3.5.5 Electrical Design: 

a. The lobby shall retain a walkthrough metal detector as well as an 

6 of14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001236 
231 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

x-ray machine and badge reading system (one turnstile portal). 

The Contractor will not be required to keep the existing machines 

if other more aesthetically-appropriate and functionally-similar 

units are available. The design will provide wiring runs for this 

equipment and other security notification systems remaining or 

added to the new design. 

b. The new lobby and visitor center will have displays, kiosks, and 

other educational media that will be updated regularly. The 

design must include means and methods to allow flexibility for 

the placement as well as utilities that may be required for these 

continually changing exhibits. 

3.6 NFPA Compliance: The A/E Contractor shall adopt NFPA requirements within 

their design or incorporate the requirements in the project documents to be the 

responsibility of the Construction Contractor. The Construction Contractor shall 

be responsible for hydraulic calculations and sizing sprinkler pipes accordingly. 

3.6.1 The A/E Contractor shall incorporate the following into the project 

documents to he the responsibility of the Construction Contractor: 

1. All exposed sprinkler piping shall be painted red. All 

unexposed sprinkler piping shall be labeled. 

2. Per NFPA 13, section 6.1.1, work plans shall be submitted for 

approval. The plan is to incorporate all applicable elements 

listed in NFPA 13, section 6-1.1.1. 

3. Per NFPA 13, Section 8-5, hydraulic design information signs 

4. All fire management devices shall be compatible with the 

existing fire alarm system. 

5. The following construction submittals shall be required from 

the Construction Contractor for a parallel review within 

OTS/CFPB: 

Indkate panel layout and wire terminations in the 

panel boxes. 

Indicate devices. 

Provide programming, and software copy, for existing 

display terminals. 

Provide floor plan graphics for rooms, or alterations 

7 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAt HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001237 
232 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

of existing programming. 

Provide field panel wiring diagrams and battery 

calculations. 

6. All conduits carrying Fire Management System wiring shall be 

labeled and dedicated. 

3.7 Energy Conservation: The A/E Contractor shall adopt current U.S. Federal 

Government requirements on energy efficiency, water conservation and the use 

of recovered materials. These requirements shall be incorporated into the 

design documents. These requirements include but are not limited to: 42 USC 

8253(a), 42 USC 15852, and E.0.13514. TheA/E Contractor shall determine if 

there are other requirements and applicable documents that are in effect at the 

time of award and report it to the Contracting Officer immediately. 

The A/E shall specify energy-efficient products that are ENERGY STAR® 

qualified or meet energy efficiency specification set by the Department of 

Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). ENERGY STAR® and 

FEMP products can be found at: htt;p://www.energystar.gov/products and 

http: //www.eere.energy gov/femp /procurement/. 

3.8 Environmental Requirements- NjA 

3.9 Construction Cost Estimate and Schedule: A/E Contractor shall provide a 

construction cost estimate and schedule with the 100% design submittaL 

3.9.1 The construction estimates shall be broken down by items to include 

material costs, quantities, and equipment rentals; and labor hours and 

rates; overhead, profit and required bonds. The final cost estimate 

shall be furnished to the CFPB electronically. 

3.9.2 The construction schedule shall list all applicable tasks and show 

critical paths throughout the project time frame. The construction 

schedule shall be furnished to the CFPB electronically in Microsoft 

Project format. 

3.10 Drawings: 

3.10.1 All drawings shall be documented 24 inches high by 36 inches wide (DSize). 

3.10.2 All drawings shall have all margins approximately 'h inch wide. Final 

drawings shall be documented on reproducible polyester drafting film 

(i.e. mylar) and have left and right margins approximately 1 inches 

8 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB_BLDG _ 001238 
233 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

wide, with all other margins approximately 'h inch wide. 

3.10.3 All drawings shall have the new CFPB's title block in the lower right 

hand corner and the A/E Contractor's title block on the adjacent left of 

CFPB's. 

3.10.4 All drawings shall be numbered with standard letter sequences 

applicable to each design discipline and labeled, "CFPB Lobby 

Renovation and Visitor Center". 

3.10.5 Each drawing sheet shall include the following statement next to the 

title block: 

"Notice: This document is and shall remain the property of the 

United States Government No information contained herein may 

be copied, disclosed, or used for any purpose without the written 

authorization of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." 

3.10.6 All final drawings, specifications and calculations shall be stamped by a 

Professional Engineer registered in Washington, D.C. 

3.10.7 All drawings generated under this Statement of Work shall be 100% 

reproducible on AutoCAD 2009. Alongwitb those drawings, any block 

libraries shall be 100% reproducible as well. These drawings, along 

with respective block libraries, shall he provided to CFPB. 

3.11 Specifications: 

3.11.1 All specifications shall be printed on standard 8 'h'' X 11" paper, using 

standard commercial section numbering. The documents shall be 

spiral bound, with division dividers. 

3.11.2 Specifications for construction shall be labeled "CFPB Lobby 

Renovation and Visitor Center". 

3.11.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide a summary "check-off' sheet of all 

construction contractors' submittals indicated in the specifications. 

3.11.4 Final specifications shall be furnished to the OTS electronically in the 

Microsoft Word 2007 format 

3.12 Calculations: All engineering calculations for all disciplines at each submission 

shall be written on standard 8'h" X 11" paper. Engineering calculations for all 

disciplines shall be prepared and/ or approved by the registered Professional 

Engineer of the appropriate discipline. The Professional Engineer shall be 

registered in Washington, D.C. 

9 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_ CFPB_BLDG_001239 
234 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

3.13 Meetings: 

3.13.1 Conceptual Design Meeting -A pre-conceptual design meeting will be 

held after the award of the A&E design competition. A date for 

conceptual design presentation will be determined. Contractor must 

be prepared for the presentation meeting no later than 45 calendar 

days after award of the design competition. 

3.13.2 Post-award Meeting· A post-award meeting will be held within ten 

(10) calendar days after the award of the Design task order. 

3.13.2 Design Review Meetings- A design review meeting will be held after 

each design submittal as required in paragraph 3.14 below. 

3.13.3 Meeting Minutes · The A/E Contractor shall take minutes of all 

meetings held relative to this task order. The format must be 

acceptable to the Contracting Officer (CO). Minutes must include the 

meeting date and time; agenda; meeting location; list of participants 

and their affiliations and telephone numbers; be fully descriptive of 

issues, problems and decisions made; and action items with names of 

responsible parties and deadlines. In addition, the minutes must 

include, as attachments, all exhibits and references distributed as 

handout materials, unless the materials are part of a formal 

submission. The A/E Contractor sball provide, via email, complete 

copies of all minutes to the CO and all attendees within 48 hours of the 

meeting. All challenges to the minutes will be reflected in a revised 

version prepared by the A/E Contractor. Copies of updated minutes 

shall be distributed to the CO and all attendees within 24 hours after 

change notice. 

3.14 Design Submittals: The following contractual periods of performance shall 

begin from the award date of the design task order. The A/E contractor shall 

provide 30%, 60%, 100% and hid document submittals, as well as any other 

submittals that may be required to insure that the design meets CFPB's 

requirements. CFPB shall respond witb comments within 21 calendar days 

after the receipt of a submittal. At that time, a design review meeting shall be 

held to review the comments. The A/E shall respond in writing to each 

comment within 7 calendar days after the design review meeting. 

3.14.1 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 30% submittal on or before the 

45th calendar day after the task order award date. This submission 

shall include the following: 

a. One (1) unbound copy of the investigation report as stated in 3.2. 

10 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001240 
235 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

b. Six (6] copies of each drawing set to include the following: 

One (1) cover sheet 

60% completion of all demolition drawings 

All drawing sheets shall include all standard sections, 

details, schedules, diagrams, and legends, as well as, 

preliminary layout and development of new sections, 

details, schedules, diagrams, and legends 

d. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design at this date. 

e. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD·R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.2 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 60% submittal on or before the 

45th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 30% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each drawing to include the following: 

1 cover sheet 

100% completion of all demolition drawings 

all remaining drawing sheets which shall include 60 % 

completion of all plans, elevations, sections, details, 

schedules, diagrams, and legends. 

b. Six (6) copies of the specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design at this date. 

d. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 90% submittal on or before the 

30th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 60% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each 90% complete drawing set 

b. Six (6) copies of90% complete specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

11 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001241 
236 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

in the design. 

d. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2009). 

3.14.4 The A/E Contractor shall provide the 100% submittal on or before the 

30th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 90% submittal 

are received. This submission shall include the following: 

a. Six ( 6) copies of each 100% complete drawing set. 

b. Six (6) copies of 100% complete specifications. 

a. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design. 

b. One (1) copy of construction cost estimate. 

e. One (1] copy of construction schedule. 

f. One (1) copy of drawings on a CD-R (AntoCad 2009). 

3.14.5 The A/E Contractor shall provide the bid document submittal on or 

before the 14th calendar day after the date CFPB comments on the 

100% submittal are received. This submission shall include the 

following: 

a. Six (6) copies of each bid document set 

b. Six (6) copies of bid document specifications. 

c. One (1) copy of all significant engineering calculations performed 

in the design. 

d. Two sets ofB-size drawings. 

e. A copy of drawings on a CD-R (AutoCad 2006). 

3.14.6 As-built drawings: 

a. The A/E Contractor shall modifY the Final drawings to reflect "asbuilt" conditions after construction is complete. These drawings, along 

with respective cell libraries, shall be provided electronically. 

3.15 Construction Phase {including Exhibit Fabrication & Installation) Services: 

3.15.1 The A/E Contractor shall provide submittal review services during the 

12 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001242 
237 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

construction process. The Contractor shall review and comment on all 

submittals for construction materials and/or shop drawings on or 

before the 7th calendar day after receipt of submittals. 

3.15.2 The A/E Contractor shall answer all construction contractor questions, 

within 48 hours in writing, relating to the design during the pre-bid 

process and the construction process. 

3.15.3 The A/E Contractor shall provide services in the form of weekly site 

visits to ensure proper construction practices and adherence to the 

design documents and intent Field observation reports and nonconformance reports shall be submitted, as requested. The Project 

Manager, or someone closely associated with the design, shall attend 

weekly construction progress meetings. 

3.15.4 After construction is complete, the A/E Contractor shall inspect the 

construction site and assist in developing a punch list report. This 

report shall be submitted on or before the 3rd day after the receipt of 

CFPB's request for inspection. 

3.16 Quality Control: 

3.16.1 The Contractor shall develop a quality plan. This plan shall be 

submitted as part of the contractor's technical proposal. The plan 

should outline the following: 

The management and organization of this project 

Intended key technical personnel, such as subcontractors, 

discipline managers, project manager, etc. 

Narrative describing product quality control. 

3.16.2 After the award of the task order, the A/E Contractor shall follow 

minimum standards of quality as follows: 

There shall be a consistency of key personnel throughout the 

project. 

All deliverables shall be routed through, reviewed and approved 

by the A/E Contractor project manager. 

All mistakes, omissions or errors discovered during the 

construction process shall be rectified by the A/E Contractor. 

The A/E Contractor shall provide the government with additional 

design drawings, cost estimates and statements of work to make 

13of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001243 
238 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

field design corrections, should they become necessary. 

4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: 

4.1 Upon final payment, the government shall have sole ownership of the designs. 

The designs shall in no part be reproduced without written permission from the 

CFPB. 

4.2 The A/E Contractor shall submit all request for information in writing to the 

COTR and allow at least seven calendar days for the COTR to respond. 

14 of 14 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001244 
239 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Coloretti, Nani (CFPB) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Coloretti, Nani (CFPB) 

Monday, January 24, 20114:48 PM 

Martin, Alyssa (CFPB)Disabled 

Cc: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB); Cantrell, Diane (CFPB)Disabled; Canfield, Anna (CFPB) 

Disabled 

Subject: RE: EW Briefing 

Attachments: Decision memorandum for EW on design options_final.docx; Information Memo 

For EW on OTS building improvements_final.docx 

Very minor edits that do not materially change the meaning to these two memos. 

Thanks all! 

-Nani 

From: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:01 PM 

To: Cantrell, Diane (CFPB); Canfield, Anna (CFPB) 

Cc: Ccloretti, Nani (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: BN Briefing 

Reformatted memos attached 

From: Cantrell, Diane (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:49 PM 

To: Canfield, Anna (CFPB) 

Cc: Mann, Benjamin (CFPB); Coloretti, Nani (CFPB) 

Subject: EW Briefing 

The attached are materials provided in advance of a meeting scheduled for tomorrow at lOam to briefProfess:or 

Warren on the OTS building and next steps. Please let me know if you need any additional information. 

Diane 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001245 
240 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

.From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24,2011 

Initiate Preparations to Move into OTS Building 

Recommendation 

That you approve our plan to move ahead with design options for renovating the 

OTS lobby and office space. 

-----~ ~--Approve ____ Disapprove -~---Let's Discuss 

Although decisions have not been made concerning the extent of renovations to be 

undertaken at the OTS building, it is very likely we will need to occupy a portion 

of the OTS building soon after July 21, 2011, to alleviate the space constraints 

facing CFPB. At a minimum, CFPB would remodel the main lobby and update the 

interior office space. CFPB can occupy portions of the building while the lobby is 

being remodeled and office space is reconfigured. In addition, any future projects 

identified (as outlined in the Gensler report) can be completed while the building is 

occupied. 

In order to prepare for occupancy, design work and other preliminruy steps should 

begin immediately so that construction is ready to commence August 2011. OTS 

has a procurement vehicle in place with three A&E firms that CFPB can write task 

orders against to obtain the services required. Attachment 1 provides a timeline 

for the lobby and office space projects. 

There are 5 floors of office space available in the OTS building. Two are currently 

occupied by the Federal Housing and Finance Administraton (FHFA) whose lease 

expires October 31,2013. It is proposed the CFPB occupy two of the remaining 

floors and renovate one floor at a time. It is anticipated FHF A will vacate their 

space as early as January 2012, making their two floors available for additional 

swing space, as needed. 

It is estimated that the cost of each design project will be approximately $30,000. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG _001246 
241 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

OTS Building Assessment and Recommendation 

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) contracted with Gensler, an architectural 

and engineering finn, to conduct a Facility Condition Assessment of its 

headquarters building at 1700 G Street, NW. Gensler conducted a detailed 

inspection of the building and its systems to determine its current condition and 

then developed a ten-year capital improvement plan that would bring the facility to 

a Class B+ designation. (Class B office space has high tenant standards and good 

location, construction, and management.) The capital improvement plan details 

recommended improvements to the building envelope, interior finishes, courtyard, 

and plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems. 

The Gensler assessment and the resulting capital improvement plan are useful as 

guides to the CFPB in determining what actions should be initiated to improve the 

condition of the building and office space. The Gensler plan calls for 

improvements over a period of 10 years. However, a number of these projects can 

be initiated shortly after CFPB obtains the building. These include renovation of 

the main building lobby, updating of interior office space to include restacking, 

new office fumiture, and updated lighting and finishes, elevator cab upgrades, 

HVAC and electrical upgrades, replac;ment of the exterior courtyard and 

sidewalks, and repairs to the parking garage decks. These projects would not 

impact CFPB's ability to occupy the building and would be scheduled and 

managed to minimize disruption. Federal Housing Finance Administration, Small 

Savers Child Care Development Center and retail tenants would also be present in 

the building during this period. 

Attachment A depicts the projects and associated costs that have been identified 

under the Gensler ten-year capital improvement plan. With the exception of the 

courtyard and sidewalk renovation, whlch will require extensive design work, it is 

estimated that all projects identified in Year One can be substantively completed 

within a one year after CFPB takes occupancy of the building provided design 

work and other preliminary steps be initiated immediately in preparation for 

project implementation. The other projects identified in the plan would span into 

fnture years and be managed accordingly. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001247 
242 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Due to the cost and complexity of the ten-year capital improvement plan, an 

alternative proposal is presented in Attachment B. CFPB could choose to initiate 

only those projects that affect the aesthetics of the building interior and 

functionality of office space design. Failure to complete other projects identified 

by Gensler would delay the replacement and maintenance of aging mechanical and 

electrical systems and would prevent CFPB from meeting federal energy and 

environmental mandates. In addition, the building would not receive a Class B+, 

LEAD Silver or Energy Star rating. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001248 
243 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ftom: futbs Meredith fCfpsl 

To: 

Subject: 

tep!gy Richard mpa>· Rice- Kevln !CfPB)•JJnrtan Anne 1IfP6l 

FW: Space Planning memos 

Date: 

Attachments: 

FYI 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:59:49 PM 

Dedslon Mgmoraru!um forE Wam:n tmm D fantre!l tn JnDillte eremvatlnns w Mw tn QJ5 ndf 

Jnfurmat!on Memo@ndum tp:. Warren frpm o cant'rgll QIS Bldg Assessment and Rerommendatlon pdf 

From: Tosini, Suzanne (CFPB) 

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:30 PM To: Stern, Gena (CFPB); SongvUay, Elizabeth (CFPB); Alag, Sartaj (CFPB); Gilford, Samuel (CFPB); 

Agostini, Stephen (CFPB); fuchs, Meredith (CFPB) 

Subject: FW: Space Planning memos 

FYI- here are the memos. And note Stephanie's email in June 2011 (below) 

From: Basham, Stephanie (CFPB) 

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:51 AM 

To: Toslnl, SUzanne (CFPB) 

Subject: FW: Space Planning memos 

Found this in my sent folder. 

Stephanie Basham 

Realty Officer I Facilities I Office: I 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

f'l'lo>.:l!tn<'{'6Jl;IO>T prw 

··-------·---

From: Basham, Stephanie (CFPB) 

Sent: Wednesday, June 08,2011 11:27 AM To: levisohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Planning memos 

Ethan: 

I have not found any specific documentation that refers to the decision to move to the OTS 

Building. rve found the Gensler Report talking about the condition of the building and two 

memorandums that Diane Cantrell prepared for Elizabeth Warren. l have no idea if these were ever 

presented to Professor Warren or not. 

I've pretty much gone through what I have access to with regard to Diane's documents. 

Please let me know ift11ere is anything else I can do for you. 

Stephanie Basham 

Realty Officer 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001249 
244 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 

1801 L Street, N.W., Room #7313b 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

E-Mail: @Treasurv goy 

Office: 

Cell: 

--:--:--•• •-•m•••m•""'"''''--'"-'"'''--"'"_"_'_"_" ____ ,,,,, 

From: Levisohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, June 05, 2011 5:28 PM To: Basham, Stephanie (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Planning memos 

Thanks 

From: Basham, Stephanie (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 5:11 PM 

To: levisohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Subject: Re: Space Planning memos 

I will look and send what I find in the morning. 

From: Levisohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 04:38 PM 

To: Basham, Stephanie (CFPB); Gragan, David (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Planning memos 

They do, thanks 

Do you have any that refer to to the decision to move to the OTS building? 

EHL 

.. , ...... , .... -., ..... ~·:c·-·--· .. ·-··-"··· ....................... , .............. - .................. --···- ----·--· From: Basham, Stephanie (CFPB) 

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 2:59PM 

To: Gragan, David (CFPB); Levisohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Cc: Gordon, Michael (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Planning memos 

I have found the attached e-mails. 

Does this help? 

Stephanie Basham 

Realty Officer 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 

1801 L Street, N.W., Room #7313b 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

E-Mail: mrreas!JCV gov 

Office: 

Cell: 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001250 
245 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

From: Gragan, David (CFPB) 

Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 11:33 AM To: Levlsohn, Ethan (CFPB); Basham, Stephanie (CFPB) 

Cc: Gordon, Michael (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Planning memos 

Ethan, sony for being slow in responding. The moves have been pretty time consuming. But,. to 

answer your original question, yes, I can check and have Stephanie Basham check for any 

correspondence about our DC office locations and moves. Stephanie is down at the new office on 

Pennsylvania Avenue right now! but I will add her to this email so that we can close the loop on this 

Monday. 

David P. Gragan 

Department of the Treasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

ATfN: 1801 L Street 

D.C. 20220 

From: Levlsohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Sent: Friday, June 03, 20!1 2:49PM 

To: Gragan, David (CFPB) 

Cc: Gordon, Michael (CFPB) 

Subject: RE: Space Planning memos 

David-

! wanted to follow up on this request- is this something that you're familiar with? 

Thanks, 

EHL 

From: Levlsohn, Ethan (CFPB) 

Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:09PM To: Gragan, David (CFPB) 

Subject: Space Planning memos 

DavidSorry to keep pestering you on this IG tequest but in our discussions, it was suggested you might 

have access to some documents related to space planning decisions, for instance memos that went to 

EW regarding decisions about our DC or other office locations. In particular, there may have been 

some memos from Diane Cantrell (and Stephanie Basham might be keeping copies of those 

memos). Is this something you can help with? I'm happy to swing by to discuss in person. 

Thanks, 

EHL 

Ethan Lc\tisohn 

Allomey-Advisor 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ~ Enforcement 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001251 
246 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

OTS Building Assessment and Recommendation 

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) contracted with Gensler, an architectural 

and engineering finn, to conduct a Facility Condition Assessment of its 

headquarters building at 1700 G Street, NW. Gensler conducted a detailed 

inspection of the building and its systems to determine its current condition and 

then developed a ten-year capital improvement plan that would bring the facility to 

a Class B+ designation. (Class B office space has high tenant standards and good 

location, construction, and management.) The capital improvement plan details 

recommended improvements to the building envelope, interior finishes, courtyard, 

and plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems. 

The Gensler assessment and the resulting capital improvement plan are useful as 

guides to the CFPB in determining what actions should be initiated to improve the 

condition of the building and office space. The Gensler plan calls for 

improvements over a period of I 0 years. However, a number of these projects can 

be initiated shortly after CFPB obtains the building. These include renovation of 

the main building lobby, updating of interior office space to include restacking, 

new office furniture, and updated lighting and finishes, elevator cab upgrades, 

HVAC and electrical upgrades, replacement of the exterior courtyard and 

sidewalks, and repairs to the parking garage decks. These projects would not 

impact CFPB's ability to occupy the building and would be scheduled and 

managed to minimize disruption. Federal Housing Finance Administration, Small 

Savers Child Care Development Center and retail tenants would also be present in 

the building during this period. 

Attachment A depicts the projects and associated costs that have been identified 

under the Gensler ten-year capital improvement plan. With the exception of the 

courtyard and sidewalk renovation, which will require extensive design work, it is 

estimated that all projects identified in Year One can be substantively completed 

within a one year after CFPB takes occupancy of the building provided design 

work and other preliminary steps be initiated immediately in preparation for 

project implementation. The other projects identified in the plan would span into 

future years and be managed accordingly. 

CONFIOENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001252 
247 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Due to the cost and complexity of the ten-year capital improvement plan, an 

alternative proposal is presented in Attachment B. CFPB could choose to initiate 

only those projects that affect the aesthetics of the building interior and 

functionality of office space design. Failure to complete other projects identified 

by Gensler would delay the replacement and maintenance of aging mechanical and 

electrical systems and would prevent CFPB from meeting federal energy and 

environmental mandates. In addition, the building would not receive a Class B+, 

LEAD Silver or Energy Star rating. 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001253 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

() 

0 

z 

"T1 

a 

m 

z 

:I: 

{)l I~ =tl 1: 

5 I~ CFPB BUILDING PLAN Garage repairs -$938,955 Fa,ade Inspection & repairs - $34,604 Clean and palnt eXterior steel on roof with rust-lnhibtting exterior enamel- $34,604 frequency drives on pumps/fans- $80,925 Convert all controls to DOC- $6,500,733 routine maintenance- $173,019' Add secondary storm annunciator with new graphic display panel- draining- .$93,430 New Interior ceilings/lighting Including energy efficient lighting equipment w/ heat-recovery systems- $4,402,855 Performance monitoring & control strategy- CO-Level controlled garage exhaust w/VFD- $76,475 Install full spectrum maintenance- $173,01

Fa>ade Inspection & re

$34,604 Clean and paint exterio

roof with rust-Inhibitin

Upgrade electrical pane

$173,019 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

8 

z 

:!l 

0 

m 

:I ;;) ::g 1: 

CFPB BUILDING PLAN 

Roof maintenance -

$249,958 

Garage inspect and rout!nemalntenance- $173,019 

annunciator with new Replacement of leaking fire 

pump- $75,696 

$34,604 

Clean and paint exte

*This work occurs. within office space. Delaying until post-occupancy will significantly increase the cost and will have a negative Impact 

occupants. 
250 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH WARREN 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Diane Cantrell 

January 24, 2011 

Initiate Preparations to Move into OTS Building 

Recommendation 

That you approve our plan to move ahead with design options for renovating the 

OTS lobby and office space. 

___ Approve ____ Disapprove ____ Let's Discuss 

Although decisions have not been made concerning the extent of renovations to be 

undertaken at the OTS building, it is very likely we will need to occupy a portion 

of the OTS building soon after July 21,2011, to alleviate the space constraints 

facing CFPB. At a minimum, CFPB would remodel the main lobby and update the 

interior office space. CFPB can occupy portions oftbe building while the lobby is 

being remodeled and office space is reconfigured. In addition, any future projects 

identified (as outlined in the Gensler report) can be completed while the building is 

occupied. 

In order to prepare for occupancy, design work and other preliminary steps should 

begin immediately so that construction is ready to commence August 2011. OTS 

has a procurement vehicle in place with three A&E firms that CFPB can write task 

orders against to obtain the services required. Attachment 1 provides a timeline 

for the lobby and office space projects. 

There are 5 floors of office space available in the OTS building. Two are currently 

occupied by the Federal Housing and Finance Administraton (FHF A) whose lease 

expires October 31, 2013. It is proposed the CFPB occupy two of the remaining 

floors and renovate one floor at a time. It is anticipated FHF A will vacate their 

space as early as January 2012, making their two floors available for additional 

swing space, as needed. 

It is estimated that the cost of each design project will be approximately $30,000. 

1 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB_ BLDG _001256 
251 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Building Projects- Draft Timeline 

Lobby Renovation 

Desian Concept 

February 1, 2011-award design competition task orders 

February 7- hold pre-concept design meeting (note- SOW doesn't specify window for this- state 

"within one week") 

March 24- presentations must be completed (45 calendar days after meeting per SOW) 

March 25-28- presentations by 3 A/E firms 

March 28- AprilS- Decision window for CFPB to choose design (2 weeks) 

Design/Construction Documents 

April 25- Award design contract (I allowed 2 weeks for procurement to award the task order} 

May 2- Post award meeting (change SOW to "within one wee!<') 

June 16- 30% submittals due, including prospectus on programmatic portion (SOW gives 45 days) 

July 30- CFPB comments due to A/E (change SOW to allow 14 days) 

August 14-60% submittals due (SOW gives 45 days after comments) 

August 24 -CFPB comments due to A/E (change SOW to allow 10 days) 

September 23-90% submittals due (SOW gives 30 days after comments) 

October 3- CFPB comments due to A{E (change SOW to allow 10 days) 

November 2-100% submittals due (SOW gives 30 days) 

November 12 -CFPB comments due to A/E (change SOW to 10 days) 

November 26- bid documents submitted (SOW gives 14 days) 

Construction Award 

December 6 -Issue bid package to prospective contractors (use existing federal energy contracts) 

December 10- Pre-Proposal Conference 

December 24- Bids due 

December 27- January 7, 2012- Technical review of proposals (with A/E involvement) 

January 7- Award Recommendation 

January 14- Award 

January 21- Post Award Meeting 

Construction 

January- June 30, 2012- Construction (assumes no hidden issues or partfcufarly complex design 

features) 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC_CFPB_BLDG_001257 
252 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


Schedule by Floor: 

February 28- Award of A/E Contract 

March 7- Kick-Off Meeting 

Second Floor 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Renovation of Office Floors 

March 8, 2011- July 25, 2011- De~ign second floor 

July 26, 2011- August 15, 2011- Award construction contract (2ntl floor) 

August 16, 2011- January 9, 2012- Construction (2'' floor) 

January 10, 2012- January 16- Occupy 2'' floor/vacate 6"' floor 

Sixth Floor 

May 17, 2011-August 22, 2011- Design sixth floor 

August 23, 2011- September 12, 2011- Award construction contract (6"' floor) 

January 17,2012- May 21,2012- Construction (6'" floor) 

May 22, 2012- May 28, 2012- Occupy 6'" floor/vacateS'' floor 

Third Floor 

July 12, 2011- October 17, 2011- Design third floor 

October 18, 2011- November 7, 2011- Award construction contract (3'' floor) 

February 2, 2012- June 6, 2012- Construction (3'' floor) 

June 7, 2012 -June 13, 2012 -Occupy 2"' floor/vacate fourth floor 

Fourth Floor 

August 9, 2011- November 14, 2011- Design fourth floor 

November 15, 2011- December 5, 2011- Award construction contract (4th floor) 

February 2, 2012- June 6, 2012- Construction (4"' floor) 

June 7, 2012- June 14, 2012- Occupy 4"' floor 

Fifth Floor 

June 14, 2011- September 19, 2011- Design fifth floor 

September 20, 2011- October 10, 2011- Award construction contract (5th floor} 

May 29, 2012- October 1, 2012- Construction (5" floor) 

October 2, 2012- October 8, 2012- Occupy S"' ftoorfvacate third floor 

CONFIDENTIAL HFSC _ CFPB _BLDG_ 001258 
253 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Sen·ices 

The 2018 Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau ofCmtsumer Financiul Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Questions for the Honorable Miek Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, from Ranking Member Maxine Waters: 

Mr. Mulvaney, let me repeat that you are not· and my additional questions should not be 

construed to suggest- the legitimate, lawful Acting Director of the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau. I look forward to the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling in the matter, but I will not 

stand idly by while President Trump's OMB Director destroys the Consumer Bureau when 

harmed consumers need help. 

Question J 

When can I expect the information regarding Fay Servicing that I asked you in the hearing? 

Response 

I am serving as Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) 

pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which permits the President to designate any 

presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed officer to serve in that role. I will continue to satisfy 

all statutory obligations of both roles so long as I serve. As you may know, Ms. English resigned 

from the Bureau in early July and withdrew her lawsuit. 

The Bureau entered a consent order with Fay Servicing, LLC on June 7, 2017. 1 The order 

provided for remediation, which is ongoing. 

Payday Lending and Protecting Consumers 

Question 1 

Mr. Mulvaney, often, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisTe say that loans with high 

interest rates in and of themselves are not predatory. But let's be absolutely clear: any lender that 

intentionally profits off of a borrower's inability to repay a loan is most certainly oiTering a 

predatory product. 

Under Director Cordray, the Consumer Bureau brought lawsuits against four online payday 

lenders that were violating the Truth In Lending Act, deceiving consumers, and unlawfully 

withdrawing funds from their bank accounts to pay debts that the consumers didn't legally owe. 

Two of these payday lending firms, Golden Valley and Silver Cloud Financial, offered online 

loans of$300 and $1,200 with interest rates up to 1000"/o. And the Bureau's investigation 

showed that these high-cost loans violated licensing requirements or interest-rate caps, or both, 

1 hups:f/www.conswnerfimmce.gov/policy-compliancefenfQI1:ement/actions/fuy-servicing-llc/. 
254 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Senti·AIIIIIIctl Report of the Bttreau of Consumer Finam:ial Protec:tio11 

Questions for the Record 

April II, 2018 

that made the loans void in at least 17 states. After you arrived at the Consumer Bureau, you 

dropped the lawsuits against these predatory lenders. 

You have never publicly explained the reasoning, but the Consumer Bureau put out a statement 

saying it would "investigate the transactions at issue." Mr Mulvaney, let me ask you about some 

of the transactions at issue. Golden Valley was offering short-term payday loans with interest 

rates of950%, with over $3,000 in fees on a $800 loan. 

• Do you think $3,320 in fees on a $800 loan is fair? What about $3,320 in fees on an $800 

loan where the customer is never informed about the true terms of repayment or interest 

rate on the lonn? 

Respo11se 

Usury is generally defined at the State level. Section 1027{o) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) limits the Bureau's authority to impose 

usury limits. Accordingly, the Bureau has no statutory role in saying what rates are fair, but it 

expects applicable parties to adhere to Federal consumer financial law, including the Truth in 

Lending Act (TILA), Regulation Z, and the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive nets 

or practices. 

Queslion3 

On November27, 2017, which I believe was the first day you went to the Consumer Bureau's 

headquarters, the agency announced there would be no payments out of the civil penalties fund 

for at least 30 dnys until you "get a handle on what thnt fund is all about before we make any 

distributions." This is despite the fact the Civil Penalty Fund has returned hundreds of millions 

of dollars to consumers that were harmed by financial institutions, including payday lenders. In 

fiscal year 2017, a total of $26 I .9 million was distributed to 132,000 harmed consumers using 

the Civil Penalty Fund. 

• Given that you reversed course a few days later and allowed the disbursal of payments to 

harmed consumers, do you admit you were wrong to begin with, that you should have 

never frozen those payments? 

Response 

As the new leader of the Bureau, it is my duty and responsibility to examine all of the Bureau's 

actions to ensure that they align with the Bureau's statutory mandate. The Bureau is maintaining 

operation of the Civil Penalty Fund. During my tenure, the Bureau has completed two 

allocations from the Fund and distributed over $110 million to harmed consumers. 

2 
255 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

T11e 1018 Semi-Annual Report of the B11rea11 tifCmummer Fiuatzcial Protectioll 

Questions for the Record 

April II, 2018 

Question4 

Mr. Mulvaney, under the leadership offonner Director Cordray, the Consumer Bureau also 

conducted live years of research and reviewed over one million comments from all types of 

stakeholders, which culminated in the Consumer Bureau issuing the payday rule to put an end to 

predatory debt traps by requiring lenders to ensure that consumers can actually afford to pay off 

their payday loans. On the day the rule was set to take effect, you announced plans to strip those 

protections from consumers. 

When I sent you a letter along with several of my colleagues asking you to elaborate on the 

rationale behind dropping the lawsuits and halting the implementation of the payday rule, along 

with a request infonnation about your meetings with the affected payday lenders, you responded 

with a two-paragraph letter that failed to address any of the questions we raised. 

So I'll ask you some of those questions again: 

a) Mr. Mulvaney, what analysis did the Consumer Bureau undertake before deciding to halt 

the payday rule? 

Response 

The "Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans" rule is complete and 

became effective on January 16,2018. As written, most provisions of the rule do not require 

compliance until August 19, 2019. As the new leader of the Bureau, it is my duty and 

responsibility to examine all of the Bureau's actions to ensure that they align with the Bureau's 

statutory mandate and advance its goals to facilitate consumer choice. This effort extends to the 

Bureau's work on small-dollar lending. For that reason, the Bureau announced that it intends to 

engage in a rulemaking process to reconsider the "Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost 

Installment Loans" rule. 

b) Mr. Mulvaney, did you or any other members of your staff meet with or communicate 

with the representatives of the payday loan industry prior to the decision to dismiss the 

case against Golden Valley Lending, Inc., Silver Cloud Financial, Inc., Mountain Summit 

Financial, Inc., and Majestic Lake Financial, Inc.? 

Response 

I have not had any fonnal meetings of the type described above during my time as the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget or as Acting Director of the Bureau. I was once 

approached at a social event by someone who identified himself as an owner of such an entity, 

which was in litigation with the Bureau, but I did not engage in any substantive discussion of the 

pending matter and I referred him to the Enforcement team. I do not consider such an encounter 

to be a "meeting." 

3 
256 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Scn•iccs 

The 20llf Semi-Amtttal Report of the Burettll of Con:mmer Fina11cial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

April 11, 2018 

No Director Nominated and Potential Conflicts 

Ques/ion5 

Mr. Mulvaney, you are currently the Director of the OM B, working out of President Trump's 

White House, correct? And you have only been confinned by the Senate to work in that role, 

correct? It has been almost five months since fonner Director Cordray stepped down. By failing 

to nominate someone quickly, the President seems to be doing nil he can to evade the checks and 

balances of the Senate confinnation process and letting you handle the Consumer Bureau's work 

as long as possible. 

a) Have you discussed with the President who he should nominate? 

Response 

As you may know, in June President Trump nominated Kathy Kraninger to be the next Director 

of the Bureau. I anticipate her swill confirmation. 

b) Have you discussed with the President any aspect- big or small- regarding your efforts 

at the Consumer Bureau? 

Response 

I have not discussed the business of the Bureau with the President. The President has asked me 

to go over and run the Bureau. There is a statute that says what it shall and shall not do, and I am 

doing those things. 

c) Furthermore, can you please discuss how you have handled the potential legal and ethical 

conflicts that occur when serving in two conflicting roles: one heading an Executive 

agency and the other as the so-called "Acting Director" of an independent regulatory 

agency with enforcement powers? Would you agree that this arrangement is a major 

conllict ofinterest that undermines the Consumer Bureau's independence? What is 

stopping the President from directing you to use the Consumer Bureau • s enforcement 

powers to go after his enemies or to not go after his friends? 

Response 

I am serving as Acting Director of the Bureau pursuant to !he Federal Vacancies Refonn Act, 

which pennits the President to designate any presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed officer 

to serve in that role. I reject the premise that there is any theoretical or actual conflict of interest 

between the two positions, and I will continue to satisfy all statutory obligations of both roles so 

long as I serve. 

4 
257 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Annual Report of the B11reau of Consumer Financial Protection 

Questions for tbe Record 

April IJ, 2018 

Your final question poses a hypothetical situation that has never occurred. 

d) What policies and procedures are in place to ensure that your responsibilities at the OMB 

do not undermine the Bureau's independence? 

Responsa 

I note that this question is substantively identical to your question I O(a) below. Accordingly, I 

will provide the same answer to each question. 

There is no statutory or regulatory framework that requires any such policies or procedures for 

an individual serving in an acting capacity pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. 

e) Has the Federal Reserve Inspector General reviewed these potential conflicts and the 

appropriateness of holding two conflicting part-time jobs instead of focusing full-time on 

the position of which you were confirmed and sworn into? 

Response 

I note that this question is substantively identical to your question IO(b) below. Accordingly, I 

will provide the same answer to each question. 

There is no conflict and I am not aware of any such review by the Inspector General of the Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

Staff Pay 

Question6 

Mr. Mulvaney, you have often complained that the Consumer Bureau engages in "wasteful 

spending," and for the Consumer Bureau's quarterly funds transfer request in January, you 

submitted a request to the Federal Reserve of zero dollars. You also told a group of State 

Attorneys general that "I found out yesterday that I'm paying people- it's amazing what you 

learn in these places -I'm paying people at the CFPB to do economics research on climate 

change. Not sure how that happened, but we're going to see if we can't ligure out a way to 

change that." However, it's clear that your problems with Consumer Bureau's spending and staff 

salaries don't apply to the staff that ~brought in during a hiring freeze. In fact. you recently 

appointed two senior staff members, who formerly were employed by the Committee Chairman, 

who are paid salaries in excess of $230,000. This contradiction was widely covered by major 

news publications. 

5 
258 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Scn·ices 

Tlte 1018 Semi~Amwal Report oftlte Buretm ojCo11sunter Fi111mcial Pmtecti01t 

Questions for the Record 

April ll, 2018 

• Mr. Mulvaney, would you elaborate on lhis inconsistency? Is this supposed to be an 

effort for you to highlight the extraordinary power that you claim lies with the Bureau? 

Or is it simply a case of"do as I say and not as I do"? 

Respoi!Se 

Agencies, including the Bureau, are authorized to make non-career appointments (often referred 

to as "Schedule C" appointments) to positions which are policy-determining or involve a close 

and confidential working relationship with the head of an agency or other key appointed 

officials. Schedule C hiring authority allows agencies to hire without regard to the competitive 

requirements of the civil service rules and regulations. Since I began leading the Bureau in 

November 2017, twelve positions have been created and filled using Schedule C hiring authority, 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 3302 and 5 C.F.R. § 2 I 3.330 I. Requests for the authority to hire 

under Schedule C authority are made to the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). 

At the Bureau, I have set up a system where we marry a political appointee to a career staffer, 

and lhey work together as a team. The pay that non-career appointees are receiving is under the 

same pay system set out by the previous Bureau leadership and as required by Section l 013 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act. 

On a broader note, I welcome your interest in Bureau spending. I have recommended that the 

Bureau be placed on appropriations so that Congress ean oversee the Bureau's budget and 

spending. You may be interested in joining this legislative effort, or that of Congressman Sean 

DuffY, who has introduced a bill relating to Bureau employee compensation. From an oversight 

perspective, you may be interested to learn that the Bureau has spent $242.8 million to date 

renovating a headquarters building it does not even own -and that renovations are far behind 

schedule. You may be interested to learn that since its inception, the Bureau has paid $296 

million in management consulting fees to companies like Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloilte 

Consulting, and Booz Allen Hamilton. 

Payday Rule 

Questioll7 

Mr. Mulvaney, let's discuss payday loans. The Consumer Bureau found lhat payday loan 

borrowers have an average income of around $25.000 and that more than four of live paydav 

loans are re-borrowed within a month. In other words, payday loans regularly trap financially 

vulnerable borrowers in a vicious cycle of debt. After more than five years of extensive study 

and public engagement, the Consumer Bureau issued a payday rule to rein in these debt traps 

with the core of the rule being the common sense requirement that lenders verify borrowers' 

ability to repay. Just a few days after you showed up at the Consumer Bureau, you coiled for 

~to pass a resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, a unique measure that 

6 
259 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

Tire 2018 Semi-Amwal Report of the Bureau ofCommmer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

April H, 2018 

would not only kill the n.lle now, but could also potentially block any federal agency from 

issuing a substantially similar rule protecting consumers from payday loan debt traps. A few 

weeks later, the Bureau announced it would delay implementation of the rule and reconsider it, 

which looks like a precursor to administratively killing the rule. 

a) Why have you asked Congress to potentially prohibit the agency from moving forward 

on this subject matter if they concluded that doing so is necessary to protect consumers? 

Response 

As a former member of Congress, and of the House Committee on Financial Services, I support 

efforts by Congress to use legislative authority to oversee agency activities, including the 

Congressional Review Act. I have also made four legislative recommendations to make the 

Bureau more accountable to the American people. 

As for the Bureau's prior announcement of its intention to revisit the "Payday, Vehicle Title, and 

Certain High Cost Installment Loans" rule, I will not pre-judge the outcome of that process. 

b) Given your support for the Congressional Review Act, which would potentially shut the 

door on any substantially similar payday rule, should we assume that your action to 

reopen the rule is merely the first step in killing it? 

Response 

Please see my response to question 7(a) above. 

c) In your op-ed published in the Wall Street Joumal, you stated that data should guide the 

Bureau's actions. What data on payday loans did you collect before taking these actions 

against the rule? What efforts have you undertaken to solicit input from the American 

public in assessing the impact of the Bureau's payday rule? 

Response 

If I decide that the Bureau should propose revisions to the rule, the Bureau will follow the 

procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, including 

analyzing the costs and benefits of the proposal to consumers and to covered institutions. It 

would have been premature to conduct such an analysis before decisions nre made as to what 

changes, if any, to propose to the rule. The January 16,2018 statement did not delay the 

compliance date by which lenders would have to begin complying with most provisions of the 

rule. 

Debt Collection 

7 
260 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

Tile 1018 Semi-Amwal Report of the Bureau cifConsumer Fillattcial Pmteclimr 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

QuestionS 

In your Wall Street .Journal op-ed you said almost a third of consumer complaints received by 

the Bureau are associated with debt collection and said "data like that should, and will, guide our 

actions." Why then did the Consumer Bureau, at your direction, cancel a survey of consumers 

about their experiences with debt collection? 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to a question I received from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

(NV) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For thnt reason, I am providing you the same 

response I will provid~ to the Senator. 

The survey for which the Bureau sought Oflice of Management and Budget (OMB) approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act was tied to testing particular disclosures that were under 

consideration as part of a potential rulemaking with respect to debt collection. The request for 

comment on the Bureau's request appeared in the Fedeml Register on November 14,2017, less 

than two weeks before I became the Acting Director. I decided that before proceeding with the 

survey I first wanted to review the proposals that were under consideration for the rulemaking so 

that any data collection would be tailored to what l determined to be the appropriate scope for 

the rulemaking rather than driven by decisions that may have been made by my predecessor. 

Prior to my tenure ns Acting Director, the Bureau did conduct a survey of consumers about their 

experiences with debt collection. 

Question 9 

The debt collection industry and consumer groups both believe a rule is needed either to clarify 

which types of debt collection practices are acceptable or to protect consumers from abuse. 

a) Given this, are you also in agreement that the Bureau should issue a debt collection rule? 

b) How should the viewpoint of consumers be considered in any future rule? 

Respome 

I note that this question is identical to a question I received from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

(NV) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 

Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am providing you the same 

response I will provide to the Senator. 

8 
261 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-A11nual Report of/he Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Rec:ord 

April 11, 2018 

The Bureau has identified debt collection as part of its plans for upcoming proposed rules in the 

Fnll 2018 Unified Agenda. Debt collection is one of the most complained-about financial 

products, and industry and consumer groups have encouraged the Bureau to engage in 

rulemaking regarding this over forty-year-old statute. The Bureau has engaged in research and 

pre-rulemaking activities regarding debt collection practices, including issuing an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in November 2013 and releasing an Outline of Proposals Under 

Consideration in preparation for a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) panel in July 2016. The Bureau expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

addressing such issues as communication practices and consumer disclosures by spring 2019. 

On Heading Two Agencies 

Question 10 

Mr. Mulvaney, in addition to being at the Consumer Bureau, you are currently the Director of the 

Office of Budget and Management, which is part of President Trump's Administration. Can you 

please discuss how you have handled the potential legal and ethical conflicts that occur when 

serving in two conflicting roles: one heading an Executive agency and the other as the so-called 

"Acting Director" of an independent Federal agency? Would you agree that this arrangement is 

a major conflict of interest? 

Response 

As noted in a previous response, I am currently serving in both roles under the authority of the 

Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which permits the President to designate any presidentiallyappointed, Senate-confirmed officer to serve in that role. l reject the premise that there is any 

theoretical or actual conflict of interest between the two positions, either ethical or legal, and l 

wi II continue to satisfy all statutory obligations of both roles so long as I serve. 

a) What policies and procedures are in place to ensure that your responsibilities at the Office 

of Management and Budget do not undermine the Bureau's independence? 

Response 

This question is substantively identical to your question 5(d). Please see my response to your 

question 5(d). 

b) Has either the Consumer Bureau Board or the Office of Management and Budget 

Inspector General reviewed these potential conflicts and the appropriateness of holding 

two conflicting part·timejobs instead offocusing full-time on the position of which you 

were confirmed and sworn into? 

Response 

9 
262 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 1018 Semi-Ann11ul Report of the Bureau ofCtm:mmer Finauclal Protection 

Questions for the Record 

April 11,2018 

l11is question is substantively identical to your question 5( e) above. Please see my response to 

your question 5(e). l11ere is no Inspector General for the Office of Management and Budget. 

On Halted Data Requests 

Queslionll 

Mr. Mulvaney, on Dec 4lli, 2017, Assistant Director for Supervision Examinations, Paul Sanford, 

sent an email to all bank supervisors to request that they not send any examiner information. It is 

my understanding that this was after the announcement that you made asking that Consumer 

Bureau staff not collect any personally identifiable information because you believed that data 

would be vulnerable to cyber security attacks. However, much ofthis consumer data allows the 

Bureau to examine banks, and without it, halts the work that the Consumer Bureau does to keep 

consumers safe. 

For example, the Consumer Bureau has been able to catch two different mortgage scrvicers that 

hid the process for applying for foreclosure relief from borrowers; it also caught three big credit 

reporting agencies that misled customers about their credit scores; a lender who got customers 

through misleading advertisements and then stole from them; and dozens of other companies that 

were cheating their customers. Once it discovered these frauds, the Consumer Bureau set to work 

making sure that these covered entities stopped these practices provided appropriate remedies to 

hanned consumers without ever going to court. Nothing in the Inspector General reports that you 

have cited justify this data freeze. 

a) How has the Consumer Bureau been able to function without this data? 

Response 

After December4, 2017, the Division ofSupervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending (SEFL) 

suspended intaking certain sensitive information, such as data with direct persona! identifiers. 

Enforcement attorneys were conducting reviews of most investigative materials by storing those 

materials on a system used by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Supervision did not take 

data with direct personal identifiers onto the Bureau's systems, instead reviewing it on-site. 

On May 31, 20 18, after an exhaustive review by outside experts, including a comprehensive 

"white-hat hacking" effort, !lifted that hold. The independent review concluded that ''externally 

facing Bureau systems appear to be well-secured." The assessors identified no "Critical" 

findings and made three technical recommendations, all of which the Bureau has completed 

remediating. 

b) Do you believe that the Consumer Bureau has been able to adequately examine banks and 

keep consumers safe without this data? 

10 
263 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Anmml Report tifthe BuretUf of Consumer Financial Protection 

Questions for lhe Record 

Aprillt, 2018 

Response 

The Bureau had access to this data. The temporary freeze I instituted related to the storage of the 

data, not its use. Although no system can guarantee security in a world of sophisticated and 

constantly evolving external threats, the Bureau is now confident in the security of its systems, 

and supervision, enforcement, and fair lending teams can again collect and store information in 

the manner they used prior to the implementation of the freeze in December. This process has 

been an important exercise in holding the Bureau to the same high standards to which we hold 

the entities we oversee. 

On the Change in Mission 

Questionl2 

Mr. Mulvaney, under your supervision, the Consumer Bureau has a created a new mission 

statement focusing the Bureau, a regulatory agency, on deregulation. The new mission statement 

seems to be more focused on getting rid ofthe rules that protect consumers than to ensure 

compliance with them and enforce them. The original mission statement of the Consumer Bureau 

read: 

"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer 

finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly 

enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their 

economic lives." 

lt now reads: 

"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer 

finance markets work by regularly identifying and addressing outdated. unnecessary or 

unduly burdensome regulations. by making rules more effective, by consistently 

enforcing federal consumer financial law and by empowering consumers to take more 

control over their economic lives." 

In spite of what you have stated to the contrary, it is clear that this new mission of the favors the 

financial industry rather than hard-working American consumers. 

• Mr. Mulvaney would you please explain why you believed it was necessary to change the 

language of the mission statement that focused on protecting consumers? 

Rcspo11se 

I note that this question is identical to a question l received from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto 

(NV) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking. Housing and Urban 

II 
264 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

Tile 1f)J8 Semi-Annual Rept1rt ciftlle Buret1u of Consumer Fina11dal Protectlrm 

Questions for the Record 

Aprillt,2018 

Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am providing you the same 

response I will provide to the Senator. 

You may recall that the language is drawn from one of the five statutory objectives of the 

Bureau, and is drawn directly from Section l021(b)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Questio11l3 

Mr. Mulvaney, it appears that you have changed the seal of the agency based on the Semiannual 

Report submitted to Congress. 

• When did you commission this new seal to be developed, and what is the cost of 

rebranding nil of the agency's materials? 

Respo11se 

Section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to adopt and use n seal. The 

development of the sen! began under the former Director, Richard Cordray. I approved the finn! 

seal selection after my appointment. The Bureau is in the early phases of implementation and we 

do not yet have an estimate on implementation. 

Wells Fargo 

Question 14 

Mr. Mulvaney, on Monday, Reuters reported that the Consumer Bureau intends to levy a $1 

billion dollar fine against Wells Fargo for its wrongdoings. This comes after President Trump 

previously used his preferred communication medium to tweet that the Consumer Bureau's fine 

against Wells Fargo would be "substantially increased." And though the fine is indeed larger, all 

of these actions underscore Congress's concerns about how your presence at the Bureau 

undoubtedly undermines its independence. 

a) Mr. Mulvaney, did you or any other employee at the Consumer Bureau take this action at 

the behest of President Trump? 

Response 

No. 

b) Did you or any other employee at the Consumer Bureau confer, discuss, or otherwise 

consult with any Trump Administration official about what actions the Consumer Bureau 

should take on Wells Fargo? 

12 
265 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Annual Report of the Bnrea11 ofConsnmer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Response 

Neither l, nor Bureau employees, discussed the Wells Fargo matter with the President or other 

White House officials prior to the announcement. Bureau staff was in regular discussion with 

other prudential regulators prior to the announcement as the action taken was a joint one. 

c) What is the rationale for setting the fine threshold, and how much of this amount can we 

expect will be returned to the bank's harmed consumers? 

Response 

The billion dollar penalty was calculated based upon the statutory factors, including the 

mitigating factors and the Bureau's ability to compromise. Separate from :md in addition to the 

penalty, Wells Fargo is required to identify and remediate (I) all consumers subjected to the 

bank's practice of charging borrowers for force-placed insurance when the bank knew or should 

have known that it had ineffective processes that were likely to result in the bank unnecessarily 

placing or maintaining force-placed insurance and (2) all consumers who, during the applicable 

period, were charged a fee for extending an interest-rate-lock period for a residential-mortgage 

loan in a manner inconsistent with the policies communicated to prospective borrowers. 

Remediation is ongoing. 

Consumer Complaint Database 

Question I 5 

Mr. Mulvaney, as you know, the Consumer Bureau's public consumer complaint database tracks 

complaints made by consumers to the agency, as well as how they ore resolved. This enables the 

Consumer Bureau to identify financial practices that threaten to harrn consumers, while 

providing the additional benefit of enabling the public to evaluate both the performance of the 

financial industry and of the Consumer Bureau. In fact, the complaint database was crucial in 

aiding the investigation into Wells Fargo account scandal. James Clark, the Chief Deputy of the 

Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, testified that his Office used the Consumer Bureau's 

complaint database in its investigation into Wells Fargo. 

In February the Consumer Bureau put out a Request for Information, or "RFI," asking for 

comments from "interested parties" on the "usefulness" of the Bureau's consumer complaint data 

reporting and analysis, as well as specific suggestions or best practices for complaint reporting. 

The RFI also asks whether the Bureau should "expand, limit, or maintain" the same level of 

access to complaint information that is currently available to external stakeholders such as 

financial institutions and the public. 

13 
266 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

Tl1e 2018 Semi-Annual Report of the B11rea11 of Consumer Filrancial Proteclio11 

Questions for the Record 

April It, 2018 

• Now, Mr. Mulvaney, you've made no eiTorts to conceal your disdain for the consumer 

complaint database, in spite of the fact that over one million consumers have submitted 

complaints, and over 97% of those consumers had their issues with financial companies 

resolved in a timely manner. Are you using this RFI as a way to damper the effectiveness 

of the database, or completely remove it from public view? 

Response 

No. The purpose of a Request for Information is to solicit public comment. We have done that. 

Any decision I may make regarding the database will be informed by the comments received. 

Reorganizing the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity 

Mr. Mulvaney, as you know, the Consumer Bureau recently announced that it will bring the 

Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) under control of the Office of the 

Director, and strip the OF LEO of its enforcement and supervisory role. I am concerned that by 

taking these actions, you will frustrate the Consumer Bureau's enforcement of fair lending laws 

that are critical to protecting racial, ethnic and other minorities from discrimination. 

Question/6 

Mr. Mulvaney, did the Consumer Bureau perform a legal analysis to determine whether stripping 

the OFLEO of its enforcement authority would hinder the Bureau's ability to carry out its 

statutory mandate to provide oversight and enforcement of federal fair lending laws? 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to questions I received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) 

and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) "shall 

have such powers and duties as the Director may delegate to the Office." I have been working to 

ensure that the Bureau's operations are conducted in a way that best enables the Bureau to fulfill 

all of the Bureau's statutory requirements while reducing redundancy and maximizing 

efficiency. Changes to the structure and operations ofOFLEO are being implemented in 

furtherance of these priorities. The existing OFLEO performs different functions, including 

oversight and enforcement of fair lending laws on one hand, and promotion of fair lending 

compliance and education on the other. 

The reorganization will separate the supervision and enforcement functions previously 

performed by OF LEO from its promotion and education functions. The supervision and 

14 
267 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Senticcs 

The 2018 Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau ofConsflmer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

enforcement functions will remain in the division that is responsible for supervision and 

enforcement generally. OFLEO's remaining functions will be elevated to the Director's Office 

to become part of an Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness with a focus on advocacy and 

education, coordination, and reporting. 

The changes are designed to create efficiency and consistency in the Bureau's supervision and 

enforcement functions, and allow OFLEO to focus on promoting advocacy and education, 

coordination, and reporting. These changes should improve the Bureau's operations and our 

interactions with consumers and industry, in fulfillment of our mission, and in full compliance 

with the Bureau's statutory mandate. 

Quesli011 J 7 

How will bringing the OF LEO under the control of the Office of the Director modify the 

Consumer Bureau's decision-making process with regard to enforcement and other actions to 

protect consumers from unfair discrimination? 

a) What, if any, continuing role will the OFLEO play in supporting the Bureau's 

enforcement of fair lending laws? 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to questions I received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) 

and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

The reorganization will not hamper the Bureau's fair lending enforcement and supervisory 

activity; indeed, the reorganization should help the Bureau operate more efficiently and 

effectively. In consultation with Bureau stakeholders nnd the National Treasury Employees 

Union (NTEU) and in accordance with the Bureau's collective bargaining agreement, the Bureau 

and NTEU have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the implementation plan for 

the reorganization. Full implementation of the reorganization is expected to take a few more 

months to complete. While the Bureau works through the processes required to fully implement 

such a change, OFLEO will continue to operate as it has previously. 

The reorganization of OF LEO wi I! elevate OF LEO to the Director's Office to become part of the 

Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness. OFLEO will continue to support the enforcement of 

fair lending laws through the use of advocacy and education, coordination, and reporting. 

b) How will the reorganization affect the reporting duties for OFLEO employees, including 

the OFLEO Assistant Director? 

15 
268 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Sen•ices 

The 2018 Semi-Amtual Report of the Bureau ofCun:rumer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to questions l received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) 

and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

In consultation with Bureau stakeholders and the NTEU, and in accordance with the Bureau's 

collective bargaining agreement, the Bureau and NTEU have signed a MOU on the 

implementation plan for the reorganization. While staff will not experience changes in 

employment status, employees may experience changes in jobs and duties. Some OF LEO 

employees will remain in the OFLEO while others will take positions throughout what will be 

the Supervision and Enforcement Division. The OFLEO Assistant Director's duties will change 

insofar as the role will focus on advocacy and education, coordination, and reporting. We are 

working diligently to effect these changes while minimizing disruption to operations and 

employees. , 

c) After the reorganization, which officials in the Office of the Director will be consulted 

about OFLEO activities? Which of these officials have been hired, politically appointed 

or detailed to the Consumer Bureau since November 24, 20 17? 

d) Afier the reorganization, which political appointees and temporarily-detailed employees 

will be granted veto power over OF LEO activities and decisions? 

e) What criteria will political appointees and temporarily-detailed employees in the Office 

of the Director use to determine whether the Bureau will follow the recommendations of 

career policy experts in the OFLEO? 

f) What actions will the Bureau take to ensure that OFLEO decisions continue to be based 

on the best advice of independent, expert, career policy staff rather than the whims of 

political appointees? 

Response (c--j) 

I note that these questions are identical or substantially similar to questions I received from 

Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the 

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual 

report. For that reason, I am providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

In consultation with Bureau stakeholders and the NTEU nnd in accordance with the Bureau's 

collective bargaining agreement, the Bureau and NTEU have signed a MOU on the 

implementation plan for the reorganization. Full implementation oftlte reorganization is 

16 
269 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Ammal Report of the Bnreau ofCottsumer Financial Proteclioll 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

expected to take a few more months to complete. While the Bureau works through the processes 

required to fully implement such a change, OFLEO will continue to operate as it has previously. 

g) How will new requirements that the OFLEO report to the Office of the Director enhance 

the Consumer Bureau's ability to protect consumers from unfair discrimination? 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to questions I received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) 

and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

The Bureau intends to continue fulfilling its statutory obligation to enforce Federal consumer 

financial laws, which include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act {ECOA) and the Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA). The reorganization should improve the Bureau's opemlions and our 

interactions with consumers and industry, in fulfillment of our mission, and in full compliance 

with the Bureau's statutory mandate. The Bureau's supervision and enforcement of fair lending 

laws will continue uninterrupted in the existing supervision and enforcement offices. This will 

allow remaining OFLEO personnel to focus on education, outreach, and compliance efforts. 

OFLEO's previous organizational structure placed primary emphasis on "back-end" supervision 

and enforcement of fair lending laws, resulting in a focus on corrective measures, rather than 

"front-end" promotion of education, nnd coordination of, fair lending efforts. 

Question 18 

Please describe any independent analyses, such as third-party studies, that informed the decision 

to bring the OF LEO under the Office of the Director and strip the Office of its enforcement and 

supervisory authority. 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to questions I received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) 

and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators, 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the OFLEO "shall have such powers and duties us the Director may 

delegate lo the Office." I have been working to ensure that the Bureau's operations are 

conducted in a way that best enables the Bureau to fulfill all of the Bureau's statutory 

requirements while reducing redundancy and maximizing efficiency. Changes to the structure 

and operations ofOFLEO are being implemented in furtherance of these priorities. 

17 
270 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Amtual Report of the Bureau ofCon.mmer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Question 19 

Did you or any other Consumer Bureau employee consult with or discuss this reorganization 

with any outside entities- including lobbyists or representatives of the banking or financial 

services industry- prior to announcing the reorganization? 

Response 

I note that this question is identical to questions I received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) 

and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Bonking, 

Housing and Urbnn Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

No, I did not consult, nor am I aware of any Bureau employee discussing, the reorganization 

outside of the Bureau. 

Question 20 

Did you consult with other officials at OM B or the White House about the OFLEO 

reorganization prior to its announcement? 

Response 

I note that this question is identical or substantially similar to questions ! received from Senators 

Sherrod Brown (01-1} and Elizabeth Warren (MA) following my testimony before the Senate 

Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. 

For that reason, I am providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) detailees to the Bureau were, as a matter of course, 

part oflhe discussion, but no other employees at OMB or the White House were consulted. 

Question 11 

Is the Consumer Bureau considering any substantive changes to its approach to the enforcement 

of fair lending laws, including changes to the Consumer Bureau's interpretation of these laws? If 

so, please describe the substantive changes that are under consideration. 

Response 

I note that this question is similar to questions I received from Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) and 

Elizabeth Warren (MA} following my testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

18 
271 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Senices 

Tlte 2018 Semi-Annual Report oftlte Btlrl!all of Consumer Financial Pratectio11 

Questions for the Record 

· Aprilll, 2018 

Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Bureau's semi-annual report. For that reason, I am 

providing you the same response I will provide to the Senators. 

The Bureau intends to continue fulfilling its statutory obligation to enforce Federal consumer 

financial laws, which include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA). As you may be aware, the Bureau issued a statement on the passage of 

the Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving a bulletin titled "Indirect Auto Lending 

and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act," which had provided guidance about the 

ECOA and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. Consistent with the joint resolution, the 

guidance has no force or effect. The ECOA and Regulation B are unchanged and remain in force 

and effect. As I noted in that statement, I want to make it abundantly clear that the Bureau will 

continue to fight unlawful discrimination nt every turn. We will vigorously enforce fair lending 

laws in our jurisdiction, and will stand on guard against unlawful discrimination in credit. 

However, given this recent Congressional action, the Bureau will be reexamining the 

requirements of ECOA in light of relevant Supreme Court precedents. 

In addition, on August 31,2018, the Bureau issued an interpretive and procedural rule2 to 

implement and clarify the requirements of section I 04(a) of the "Economic Growth, Regulatory 

Relief, and Consumer Protection Act" (the Act), which amended the HMDA. The Bureau also 

released updates to the Filing Instructions Guide (FIG) for HMDA data collected in 2018 to 

incorporate the Act as implemented and clarified by the rule issued that day. 

The Act contains provisions that are intended to decrease the burden smaller depository 

institutions face in complying with HMDA and its implementing regulation, Regulation C. 

Some such institutions have raised questions about the application of the Act, and the rule issued 

in August seeks to provide clarification. At a later date, the Bureau anticipates that it will initiate 

a notice-and-comment rulemaking to incorpomte these interpretations and procedures into 

Regulation C and further implement the Act. 

: https:/ffth:s.consumerfinance.gov!ffdocumenlsibcfp_hmda)nterpretive-proceduml-rule_2018-08.pdf. 

19 
272 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee ou Financial ScrYices 

The 2018 Semi-AIIIIltal Report of the Bureau ofCtmsumer Fi11auciul Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Questions for the Honorable Miek Mulvaney, Acting Director. Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, from Congressman Ted Budd: 

Question 

Installment lending is regulated on a state by state basis, which allows regulators to make more 

informed regulatory decisions based on their state's consumer's needs, and their knowledge of 

their state's communities. In your experience as a state legislator, member of this Committee, 

and now as the Director of the CFPB, do you agree that installment lending is best regulated at 

the state level and not by the CFPB? 

Response 

As someone who is a staunch defender of our federal system, l believe that our Constitution 

limits Congress to the exercise of specific, enumerated powers, with all other powers reserved to 

the slates or the people. 

In my experience, laws enacted at the local level are usually best tailored to the needs of local 

citizens, and government officials are better held accountable. 

20 
273 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Sen-ices 

Tire 2018 Semi-Annutll Report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2!118 

Questions for the Honorable Mick Mnlvanev, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, from Congressman Bill Huizenga: 

Question! 

The Bureau bas a statutory mandate to review m{\jor rulemakings five years after the rules are 

completed. A number of major mortgage rules, including the Ability to Repay/Qualified 

Mortgage and servicing rules, are subject to this mandatory lookback. What are the Bureau's 

plans for this mandatory lookback period under your leadership? What sort of processes are you 

planning int_emally to review the feedback received thus far on how the rules are and aren't 

working? And what is the timeframe for these actions? 

Response 

Section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DoddFrank Act) requires the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) to conduct an 

assessment of each significant rule or order adopted by the Bureau under federal consumer 

financial law. The Bureau must publish a report of the assessment not later than five years afier 

the effective date of such rule or order. The assessment must address, among other relevant 

factors, the effectiveness of the rule or order in meeting the purposes and objectives ofTitle X of 

the Dodd-Frank Act and the specific goals stated by the Bureau. The assessment must re!lect 

available evidence and any data that the Bureau reasonably may collect. Before publishing a 

report ofits assessment, the Bureau must invite public comment on recommendations for 

modifying. expanding, or eliminating the significant rule or order. 

The Bureau is committed to meeting its statutory obligations. The Bureau has released its report 

on its assessment of the Remittances rule and is currently in the process of conducting 

assessments of the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage (A TRIQM) rule and the Mortgage 

Servicing (Regulation X) rule and plans to publish its reports by the statutory dead line of January 

2019. As part of these assessments, the Bureau has solicited public comment on 

recommendations for modifying, expanding, or eliminating the rules as well as comments on the 

assessment plans and certain other information that may be useful in conducting the assessments. 

The feedback that the Bureau receives through the invitation for public comment can, among 

other things, provide evidence to the Bureau about the effects of rules and point the Bureau 

toward reports and other information about the rules. Once the assessments are complete, the 

Bureau will evaluate whether amending the rules may be warranted. 

Queslion1 

The Bureau was granted broad rulemaking authority by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under previous 

leadership, the Bureau wasn't always consistent in interpreting and exercising its authorities 

under the statute. What will the approach be under your leadership? Do you believe the Bureau 

has the latitude to interpret statutory language as it sees fit? 

21 
274 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Sc.-viccs 

The 2018 Semi-Amwal Report of the Bureau ofConsllmer Finaucial Pratectimt 

Questions for tbe Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Response 

The Bureau's responsibility is to enforce the law as written. Congress has delegated to the 

Bureau broad rulcmaking authority, the purpose of which should be to effectuate statutes, not 

make policy as the Bureau sees fit. In exercising this authority, the Bureau should act with 

humility and prudence, and to undertake rulemakings only where necessary or appropriate. 

Question3 

The Treasury Department released n series of reports related to the President's February 3, 2017 

Executive Order, which include a number of recommendations for administration action by the 

Bureau with regard to modifying Appendix Q of the Ability-to-Repay rule nnd revising the QM 

3% points and fees standard, among others. What is the Bureau's timing and process for taking 

action on these recommendations? 

Response 

As noted in a previous response, the Bureau will be examining its Ability-to-Repay/Qualified 

Mortgage rule (A TRIQM rule) nnd its impacts through our upcoming assessment of the rule, in 

accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as in the Bureau's Call for Evidence initiative. 

In a Federal Register notice published on June l, 2017, the Bureau announced that it is 

conducting an assessment of the A TRIQM rule, in accordance with Section I 022( d) of the DoddFrank Act. The Bureau asked the public to comment on the planned assessment as well as 

certain recommendations and information that may be useful in conducting the assessment. 

Comments were due on July 31,2017, and the Burenu is considering public feedback in 

conducting the assessment. Like the assessments of other significant Bureau rules, the Bureau 

does not anticipate that the ATRIQM assessment report will include specific proposals by the 

Bureau to modify the rule. However, once the assessment is complete, the Bureau intends to 

evaluate whether amending the rule may be \varranted. We will also consider feedback from 

many other sources, including the recommendations in the Treasury report, as part of that 

process. 

ln addition, as mentioned, the Bureau has completed a Call for Evidence initiative aimed at 

gathering public feedback on the wide range of work done by this agency. The Bureau issued 

Requests for Information (RFls) seeking comments and information from interested parties to 

assist the Bureau in considering, among other things, whether, consistent with its authority to 

prescribe rules pursuant to federal consumer financial law, the Bureau should amend the rules it 

has promulgated since its creation. Bureau staff is in the process of reviewing the comments 

received in response to these RFis. 

22 
275 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

Tlte 2018 Semi-Amma/ Report oftlte Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Questions for the Honorable Mick Mulvanev, Acting Director. Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, from Congressman Randv Hultgren: 

Queslionl 

Section I 035 of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a Private Education Loan Ombudsman that is 

designated by the Treasury Secretary in consultation with the Director of the CFPB. The Bureau 

has also established an Assistant Director for Students and Young Consumers within its 

Consumer Education and Engagement Division. This Assistant Director appears to be appointed 

by the Director of the CFPB, not the Treasury Secretary. Under the past leadership of the CFPB, 

one person has been designated as both the Private Education Loan Ombudsman and the 

Assistant Director of the Office of Students and Young Consumers. These dual roles have 

occurred not once, but twice: first with Rohit Chopra and now Seth Frotman. 

In genernl, an Ombudsman is understood to be an impartial arbiter. Merriam-Webster defines 

Ombudsman defines an "Ombudsman" as: I) A government official (as in Sweden or New 

Zealand) appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or 

capricious acts of public officials; or 2) One that investigates, reports on, and helps settle 

complaints. I am concerned the responsibilities of the Private Education Loan Ombudsman 

cannot be fulfilled if he or she fills another position at the Bureau. 

a) Do you believe it is important for an Ombudsman to be impartial? 

Response 

As you know, the nature and duties of the Private Education Loan Ombudsman are set forth in 

Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Refonn and Consumer Protection Act. I agree with 

you that the position should be impartial. 

b) Will you commit to separating these two discrete positions at the CFPB? 

Response 

I am reviewing all positions at the Bureau and am working to ensure that the staffing reflects the 

statute and have instructed staff to confer with the Division of Consumer Education and 

Engagement to better understand how the two roles work. 

c) Will you recommend a new candidate to the Treasury Secretary for the Private Education 

Loan Ombudsman position? 

Response 

As you know, the Bureau's Private Education Loan Ombudsman resigned on September 1, 20! 8. 

As you may also know, the statute states the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 

23 
276 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Annual Report of the B11reau ofCtmsnmer Financial Pmtection 

Questions for the Record 

April ll, 2018 

Director, shall designate a Private Education Loan Ombudsman within the Bureau. 

24 
277 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Anmml Report of the Bureau of Consumer Fimmciul Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Questions for the Honorable Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protedion, from Congressman Robert Pittenger: 

Question 1 

The Bureau in the fall or2016 adopted a new prepaid account regulation thnt requires special 

disclosures and prohibits overdraft fees on prepaid accounts. The rule excludes from the 

definition of prepaid account checking accounts, which are subject to other disclosures under the 

same regulation (Regulation E) and under the Truth in Savings Act. However, the prepaid rule 

does not make a clear distinction between prepaid accounts and checking accounts. The result is 

a potential "gotcha" if regulators or plaintiffs' attorneys disagree with a bank that its bank 

account is a checking account and assert it is a prepaid account, resulting in potential enormous 

liability and penalties. 

Would you agree that an account is a "checking account" and not a prepaid account if: 

It is an account opened directly or indirectly with a bank in the name of a consumer; 

It is subject to customer identification procedures on the consumer; 

• The depository institution holding the account complies with the other provisions; of 

Regulation E and with the Truth in Savings Act with respect to the account, and; 

• The account is covered by FDIC insurance? 

Response 

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) sought to provide a clear delineation 

between prepaid accounts and other accounts covered by Regulation E in the 2016 prepaid 

accounts rule. 

However, several stakeholders raised questions specifically about the dividing line between 

prepaid and checkless checking products in comment letters they submitted when the Bureau 

proposed certain amendments to the prepaid accounts rule in 2017, as well as through other 

informal avenues. We are continuing to engage with stakeholders on this issue, and will issue 

additional guidance or clarification if it is necessary and appropriate to do so. 

Question 1 

The tone coming out of the Bureau regarding its willingness to reexamine its enforcement 

posture on a number of fronts is refreshing. This is an important step and towards the stated goal 

of enforcing consumer protection laws while issuing clear guidance to industry with respect to 

statutory boundaries. These recent actions, however, are reversible in the future. This potential 

for future uncertainty is unwelcome to businesses who deal with long-duration assets. 

• Is there any thought to codifying through rules and regulations the ideal enforcement 

posture and procedures of the bureau? · 

25 
278 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Sen-ices 

The 2018 Semi*AIIImal Report of the Bureau of Ctm.mmer Financial Protectio/1 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

Response 

Through the Bureau's Call for Evidence initiative, the Bureau solicited comments on ways to 

improve its current practices. The Bureau may consider issuing rules as a result of that process. 

Question] 

While the Bureau is supposed to use a risk-based approach to supervising nonbank mortgage 

lenders, there remains some opacity on the Bureau's approach examinations of these institutions. 

• Will the Bureau issue public guidance on what factors go into that framework? And do 

you see the Bureau leaning more on state mortgage regulators to supervise nonbank 

lenders? 

Response 

The Bureau's risk-based appronch to allocating supervisory resources among nonbanks is 

statutory. Section 1024(b)(2) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA} lays out five 

factors to be considered when determining the Bureau's exam calendar; some are market bnsed 

and some are entity based. One ofthose factors is "the extent to which such institutions are 

subject to oversight by State authorities for consumer protection." The Bureau coordinates its 

exam calendar with state examiners, including in the nonbank mortgage market. 

In terms of public guidance, the Bureau periodically publishes Supel,•iSOJJ' Highligllls to share 

key examination findings and to help the entities we supervise limit risks to consumers and 

comply with federal consumer financial law. Our Supen•isory Highlights do not refer to any 

specific institution in order to maintain the confidentiality of supervised entities. The Bureau has 

discussed its prioritization process in multiple editions of Superl'iSOIJ' Highlights. 3 

The Bureau is interested in working more closely with state regulators to ensure proper 

supervision efforts arc coordinated and efficient. 

'Supervisory Highlights: Summer 2013, at page 23, m'tlilable at 

http:flfiles.C<Jnsumerfinam:e.gov/f/20 1308_ cfpb _supervisory-highlights_ august.pdf. See also Supervisory 

Highlights: Summer 2015, at page 25, at'Oilab/e al https:l/files.consumerlinance.govlfi201S06_cfpb_supel\'isoryhighlights.pdf. See also Supervisory Highlights: Summer 2017, at page 39, m·ailable at 

hllps:/fwww.consumerlinance.govfdocuments/5386120 1709 _ cfpb _ Supervisory-Highlights_lssue-l6.pdf. 

26 
279 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Antluu/ Reporf of tile Bureau ofC(Jitsumer FiiiUIIciul Protectio11 

Questions for the Record 

April II, 2018 

Questions for tbe Honorable Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection, from Congresswoman Kyrstcn Sincma: 

Question 1 

For several years, I've reached across the aisle to protect Arizona seniors from financial fraud 

and abuse. I worked with Congressman Poliquin to introduce H.R. 3758, the Senior Safe Act, 

which provides a safe channel for trained personnel at a financial institution to report to the 

proper authorities if they suspect their customers or clients are victimized. Our bill ensures 

personnel receive training on how to detect suspicious patterns of transactions that are hallmarks 

of fraud and abuse. It has broad, bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Do you 

support Congress passing the Senior Safe Act this year, and how do you see the bill's provisions 

aligning with the CFPB's mission to serve and protect older Americans? 

Response 

As you know, much ofH.R. 3758, the "Senior Safe Act,'' was recently enacted as part ofS. 

2155, the "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act." I applaud your 

efforts and my former colleagues in Congress for coming together to pass the most significant 

financial reform legislation in recent history. This new law will improve consumers' access to 

credit, reduce regulatory burdens on credit unions and community banks, and fuel economic 

growth and job creation across the nation. 

Question] 

To best fulfill the consumer-focused mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 

CFPB should consult with state and local stakeholders to understand their concerns and the 

challenges they face. It is important that Arizonans have their voices heard regarding financial 

regulations that govern the products and services they use, and that includes preserving laws our 

state has enacted. Some of these laws protect consumers from fraud and abuse, and others 

expand access to small business lending so companies can grow and create jobs. How will the 

CFPB respect state law and ensure a diverse range of state and local stakeholder positions are 

reflected in the regulatory process? 

Response 

As I have frequently stated, the Bureau is committed to fulfilling its statutory responsibilities and 

ensuring that efforts to execute those responsibilities do not go beyond applicable laws and 

regulations established by the legislative and executive branches of government respectively. 

Chief among those responsibilities, provided for in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), 12 USC§ 5495, 12 U.S.C. § 5512(c)(6)(C), 12 

U.S.C. § 5514(b)(3), and 12 U.S.C. § 5515(b)(2), is for the Bureau to coordinate with state 

27 
280 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Annual ReprJrt of tire Bureau ofCon.mmer Financial Protection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprilll, 2018 

attorneys general and state regulators to ensure that state laws are taken into account and state 

sovereignty respected. 

I understand these statutory provisions to mean coordination with state and local policymakers 

before, during, and after the rulemaking and policy-setting processes. The Bureau's leadership 

and staff are working to maintain and expand this cooperative partnership. To that end, I 

initiated an aggressive outreach effort with state and local officials soon after I assumed 

leadership or the agency. This effort was alongside a Call for Evide11ce initiative, seeking input 

from Bureau stnkeholders, including state and local officials. The Call for E1•idmce was 

designed to ensure the Bureau is fulfilling statutorily mandated functions in protecting 

consumers in the financial marketplace. The Bureau is in the process of reviewing the thousands 

of comments, which included comments from national associations representing state and local 

officials. I expect those results will bolster the Bureau's commitment to more intentionally draw 

upon the best practices of state and local partners, to better inform the Bureau's regulatory work, 

policy initiatives, and development of consumer tools. 

Question 3 

Arizonans value their privacy, and they are frustrated by the government largely failing to take 

action to hold Equifax accountable. A few months ago, news outlets reported that the CFPB was 

stepping back from its investigation into the data breach at Equifax. Please provide a 

comprehensive list of specific actions the CFPB has taken on Equifax since your start at the 

agency, and please provide insight into what the agency plans to do to hold Equifax accountable 

for any wrongdoing going forward. 

Response 

As a point of clarification, all decisions related to pending enforcement actions are made by or in 

consultation with career staff at the Bureau. 

There has been no change in the position from previous leadership of the Bureau regarding 

Equifax. Additionally, I intend to vigorously enforce federal consumer financial law and am 

reviewing all of the Bureau's enforcement matters to ensure that the ongoing work adheres to the 

proper interpretation of federal consumer financial law. 

Question -1 

Arizona community banks and credit unions are frustrated that multiple regulators routinely 

come to their offices to ask for the same information. This takes valuable time and resources 

away from serving customers and expanding personal and small business lending for Arizonans. 

It also creates the perception that agencies lack coordination and spend taxpayer dollars to 

conduct redundant activities. Can you share what you have witnessed with respect to regulatory 

2& 
281 

Æ 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER


House Committee on Financial Services 

The 2018 Semi-Amwal Report uftlle Burea11 ofCtmsumer Financial Pmtection 

Questions for the Record 

Aprillt, 2018 

coordination? Do you think more can be done to streamline the examination process and reduce 

duplication of effort? Please provide any legislation actions you believe are appropriate in this 

regard. 

Response 

The Bureau is always looking for ways to improve coordination with its sister regulators, and 

hopes to continue those efforts through a number of pre-existing mechanisms. 

The Dodd-Frank Act contains a number of coordination provisions, all with the goal of 

minimizing regulatory burden on supervised entities. To that end, we have established strong 

working relationships with the federal regulators through the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council (FFIEC),4 which routinely reviews examination processes with the goals of 

reducing redundancy and burden on supervised entities. The Bureau dedicates significant 

resources to staff all FFIEC Task Forces and relevant working groups. We expect that this will 

continue and that the Bureau will continue to play a leading role in that work. 

For entities with state-level regulators, we interact with the state financial regulators through the 

State Coordinating Committee via the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and we conduct 

nonbank coordinated examinations annually in areas where we have concurrent jurisdiction. We 

hold joint examiner trainings, share all examination reports and supervisory letters pursuant to 

standing infonnation sharing agreements, and are always working to identify further 

opportunities for coordination through regular staff check-ins and quarterly executive-level 

meetings. 

Finally, we work closely with the Federal Trade Commission on investigations and matters 

where we have overlapping jurisdiction, and routinely share relevant infonnation through regular 

meetings and information sharing agreements. 

• The FFJEC includes I he Bureau, Federal Deposillnsumnce Corporation (FD!C), the Comptroller ofthc Currency 

(OCC), the National Credit Union Adminisuution (NCUA), the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and the State Liaison 

Committee. 

29