Consumers First Act
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has disregarded congressional intent in a number of alarming ways. Under the previous Director, Richard Cordray, the…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has disregarded congressional intent in a number of alarming ways. Under the previous Director, Richard Cordray, the agency took it upon itself to essentially write law through guidance and regulate through enforcement. Bureaucrats at the CFPB worked diligently to eliminate options for Americans, arrogantly believing they were better equipped to make financial decisions than consumers themselves.
Thankfully, under Acting Director Mulvaney and Director Kraninger, the CFPB is striving to foster an environment that promotes transparency, legitimacy, and great consumer choice. The American people deserve a Bureau that enforces law rather than creates it, while placing power and choice back in the hands of consumers themselves.
Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today accomplishes the exact opposite.
I appreciate the chairwoman's attempt to reform the Bureau and share the belief that it needs significant reform. However, instead of solving underlying issues that make the CFPB an unaccountable bureaucracy with little oversight, this legislation cherry-picks specific actions of former Acting Director Mulvaney and attempts to reverse his decisions.
Ignoring the underlying structural issues of the Bureau, Democrats are attempting to codify their CFPB agenda with respect to staffing by limiting political appointees, directing political initiatives through the creation of the Office of Students and Young Consumers, and emphasizing the powers and duties of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity.
Yet again, my friends across the aisle are more focused on who is leading the agency than on real reforms that would increase oversight and accountability at the CFPB and could shed light on some of the issues this legislation seeks to address. For example, if the CFPB were subject to an Office of Inspector General, we would have reports on whether or not staffing levels are sufficient to fulfill the Bureau's statutory goals. If the Bureau was subject to the appropriations process, Congress would have a voice in choosing the number of political appointees at the Bureau. Some of these issues, Mr. Chairman, are not even partisan, they're near bipartisan, and yet we can't get these things done.
Instead of working with Republicans to reform the Bureau, create transparency, and avoid partisan policy shifts from Director to Director, the
majority is choosing to advance legislation that mandates the advancement of political priorities.
The bottom line here is the legislation before us is wholly partisan and does nothing to ensure the CFPB can carry out its mission to protect consumers. I oppose this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do so, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), ranking member of the full committee.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment that would place, I believe, an unnecessary burden on credit bureaus with no benefits to consumers.
Currently, consumers have access to free credit scores through the annualcreditreport.com website run by the big three credit reporting agencies, or CRAs. On this website, consumers can get three separate credit scores, one at each of these three CRAs, for free. This amendment will use the CFPB to require that the CRAs provide an additional credit score to consumers. That is right, a fourth credit score.
Specifically, the amendment requires CRAs to use the credit score that is most frequently used. What the legislation fails to mention is that the most frequently used score is a FICO score. FICO scores are not free.
This amendment requires that the credit bureaus, all private companies, purchase credit scores from FICO, another private company; and in doing so, it is mandating the transfer of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from one company to another company.
One has to ask oneself, why is this designed to punish these three CRAs or to create a massive payday for FICO? This is the USA, not USSR, not China, and not Venezuela. The government has no right to force a private company to hand millions of dollars to another private company simply because the government official prefers one product over another.
In addition, the chairwoman has introduced legislation to reform the CRA and has yet to bring a bill up before the committee. I would imagine this amendment that deals with credit scores, not consumer protection, is better suited to be debated under regular order in our committee than thrown onto a bill that seeks to amend CFPB governance.
In short, this amendment has the government picking winners and losers, provides little or no benefit to consumers, is irrelevant to the subject of this bill, and should be soundly defeated.
This sets a horrible precedent, Madam Chairwoman. We are dictating one private company to pay another private company for a service. When do we ever do that? That is amazing precedent to set. How can we do this?
We are not a dictatorial government here. We allow the winners and losers to be chosen by the people through economic freedom. We don't dictate who buys a product from here and who buys a product from there. That is what the people are allowed to do on their own, and that is what makes our country so great is economic freedom to be able to do that: pick and choose between what companies provide what services and which ones they want to pay for. Instead of dictating how one company should pay another, we should be allowing the freedom for them to choose.
Again, this amendment is about picking winners and losers. It provides no benefit to consumers and should be soundly defeated.
Madam Chair, is my understanding correct that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) has no time remaining?
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Madam Chair, I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the ranking member.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.