The Association of Finance & Insurance Professionals (AFIP) is offering Industry Summit attendees a $100 discount if they register for its pre-summit certification boot camp.
In order to obtain the discount, dealer managers and F&I professionals must complete the registration by Aug. 15.
AFIP highlighted that its two-day intensive training session is slated for Sept. 7 and 8 at the Paris Hotel Las Vegas. The boot camp will culminate with the administration of the AFIP certification exam.
The regular cost for the course and boot camp is $872.50. With the discount, the cost is $772.50.
AFIP introduced regional certification boot camps in January.
“The boot camp model has been highly successful,” AFIP executive director Dave Robertson said. “An attendee at the Bossier City, La., session said it best, ‘Until now, the regulations were just words on a page. This session made them come to life and gave them relevance to what I do every day.’”
AFIP recommends that boot camp attendees study the certification course material for two to three weeks prior to the session.
To register for the pre-summit boot camp, go to www.afip.com/bootcamp or call AFIP at (817) 428-2434.
The Republican-led U.S. House Financial Services Committee has conducted multiple hearings to investigate alleged discrimination at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including a session with director Richard Cordray earlier this week.
Now the lawmakers on the committee want the Government Accountability Office to investigate the CFPB’s organizational culture and management practices in light of allegations that bureau managers are discriminating against employees based on race and gender and retaliating against employees who complain.
Rep. Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, made the GAO investigation declaration during the subcommittee’s fourth hearing since the beginning of April about allegations of employment discrimination and retaliation at the CFPB.
“Since the subcommittee opened its investigation into allegations of discrimination and retaliation at the CFPB, no fewer than 32 employees have come forward about their maltreatment. These 32 brave leaders have come forward to do what is right: to protect their colleagues who suffer, and they have stood up even in the face of retribution from their managers if they are found out,” McHenry said.
“Shortly, all CFPB employees will have an opportunity to confidentially share all of their concerns with the Government Accountability Office,” he continued.
The GAO investigation was requested a trio of Republicans — McHenry along with Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who oversees the Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, who is the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee chairman.
“The problem is a CFPB management culture that condones intimidation, discrimination, and retaliation. And if the director has failed to reprimand and remove bad managers, then the problem is also his leadership — or lack thereof,” McHenry said.
Latest Response to Allegations
Cordray spent more than two hours on Capitol Hill this week at the House hearing. He acknowledged the growth the CFPB experienced during its first couple of years of regulator existence created some issues with agency employees.
“Because of the speed with which we tried to build this new agency, we have found that we did not get everything right for our own employees. One especially sore spot was the system for reviewing and assessing the performance of CFPB employees,” Cordray said.
“During the second year we had that system, we heard complaints and concerns from employees about it. After we had completed the second year of performance reviews, we began to analyze the numbers in more detail, and we found that many different categories of employees were seeming to be treated unevenly,” he continued.
“Whether the distinction was headquarters versus field, or one part of the bureau versus another, or bargaining unit versus non-bargaining unit employees, or other categories like age and race, we perceived that the review system was creating differential outcomes that indicated the system was unsatisfactory and not working out as intended,” Cordray went on to say.
The CFPB director mentioned that about half of CFPB employee grievances filed to date have centered on performance reviews. Cordray insisted the bureau has since rolled out “decisive and comprehensive” moves to address those matters.
“We self-initiated a more detailed analysis that ultimately showed ratings disparities across a wide range of employee characteristics, which you have seen in the form of the Snapshot report that we released earlier this year,” Cordray said.
“We also put on the table in our union negotiations whether to discard the system, which we agreed to do after bargaining over it,” he continued.
During his opening statement to the House subcommittee, Cordray also touched on what the CPFB plans to implement during the next two fiscal years, including a new, two-level performance review system and a joint working group with the bureau’s union to design a new system to use long-term.
“We also announced that we would adjust prior performance-related compensation for the two years during which our employees may have been adversely affected by the flaws in the prior system,” Cordray said.
“By self-correcting and self-remediating disparities in our performance ratings, we are holding ourselves to the same standards of fairness that we expect from the financial industries we oversee,” he went on to say.
Five industry organizations banded together this week to push back against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new proposal to post anonymous complaints from the public about financial services companies online.
The groups situated near Capitol Hill — including the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, The Clearing House and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce — jointly declared in a letter to the CFPB this week that this proposal would have significant ramifications that require a substantial period of time to analyze and consider.
“The proposal raises many serious legal and practical issues, and 30 days is simply not enough time for us and our members to analyze and respond to the proposal. The associations request that the bureau extend the comment period to not less than 90 days,” the group wrote.
“The associations encourage the CFPB to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are considered in this matter,” they continued.
As SubPrime Auto Finance News highlighted in a report here, the CFPB proposal would publically disclose complaint data regarding consumer financial products and services from its Consumer Complaint Database.
The groups went on to state in their letter to CFPB director Richard Cordray that the policy would permit the complaints to be anonymously posted and currently are not guaranteed to be vetted by the CFPB for accuracy or legitimacy.
The organizations went on to say that due to privacy laws and customer confidentiality requirements, financial service companies that have complaints filed against them would not be able to verify the complainant’s information or connection to its business.
The associations went on to stress that their request for an extension of analysis time is based on two considerations. First, they said a longer comment period is consistent with the standards that other federal agencies must follow.
The groups pointed out that executive order No. 13563, dated Jan. 18, 2011, states that agencies are expected to promote public participation by affording “at least 60 days” for public comment.
“Although the bureau is not legally bound by this executive order, we encourage the bureau to follow the good government standards that other agencies follow, especially since there is no statutory deadline or other reason to apply a different standard,” the organizations wrote while mentioning the CFPB allowed 60 days to formulate comments back in 2010 when the bureau first considered implementation of its public database.
Next, the associations noted the bureau is still studying two vital operational elements of its proposal and “the public should have the opportunity to provide input on all elements of the proposal as a unified whole rather than piecemeal.”
The groups indicated the bureau is conducting a study of its ability to protect the privacy of consumers who consent to have their narratives published.
“The bureau’s proposal states that it ‘is currently conducting a study to further verify that [its] proposed scrubbing standard and methodology will sufficiently address concerns related to the FOIA, the Privacy Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the bureau’s confidentiality regulations,’” the groups said.
“The bureau is also ‘conducting research and user testing’ relating to the design, wording, location and timing of consumer consent to publication,” they continued. “We urge the CFPB to complete these studies and afford the public not less than 60 days to provide input on the entire record including the study results.”
RouteOne plans to discuss the forthcoming scrutiny of F&I products by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission during a complimentary webinar later this week.
During the webinar titled “CFPB and FTC Update: All About Add-Ons,” RouteOne staff attorney Joseph Karam and national business development manager Jesse Pappas intend to break down the cost of compliance, provide a brief introduction to the CFPB and FTC, and look closely into the forthcoming scrutiny of F&I products.
Karam and Pappas will offer a Q&A session following the presentation.
The webinar is scheduled for Wednesday beginning at noon EDT.
“As the regulatory environment grows increasingly complex, dealerships are contributing a significant amount of time, resources, and money in the effort to stay compliant,” RouteOne chief executive officer Mike Jurecki said.
“With separate federal agencies now dedicated to consumer finance and consumer protection, we encourage our dealer customers to take advantage of this opportunity to educate and prepare themselves for the future regulatory environment,” Jurecki continued.
The webinar will be recorded and available for review after the live session.
Dealers can register for the free webinar at www.routeone.com, or they can (866) 768-8301 for more information.
Back in March, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray referred to complaints as the agency’s “compass,” because these consumer statements “make a difference by informing our work and helping us identify and prioritize problems for potential action.”
If policy changes the CFPB suggested this week come to be, Cordray and the rest of the bureau’s regulators will be sharing information connected to that “compass” in much greater detail.
The CFPB is proposing a new policy that would empower consumers to publicly voice their complaints about consumer financial products and services. When consumers submit a complaint to the CFPB, they would have the option to share their account of what happened in the CFPB’s public-facing Consumer Complaint Database.
Cordray contends that publishing consumer narratives would provide important context to the complaint, help the public detect specific trends in the market, aid consumer decision-making and drive improved consumer service.
“The consumer experience shared in the narrative is the heart and soul of the complaint,” Cordray said. “By publicly voicing their complaint, consumers can stand up for themselves and others who have experienced the same problem.
“There is power in their stories, and that power can be put in service to strengthen the foundation for consumers, responsible providers and our economy as a whole,” he went on to say.
The CFPB is already getting some pushback about this proposal. One of the first industry leaders to speak up was Richard Hunt, president and chief executive officer of the Consumer Bankers Association.
“Publishing narratives of every unverified complaint will give only the illusion of disclosure. Banks have an obligation to their customers to maintain the confidentiality of their information, making it virtually impossible for a bank to offer a complete response to these narratives,” Hunt said.
“It is the role of the CFPB as the traffic cop to distinguish violations of law from unfounded complaints,” he continued. “Instead, they want to let others figure it out from one-sided and unverified narrative information. This action will ultimately add to consumer confusion, harm industry reputations and undermine any hope the CFPB may have to be viewed as a fair and honest broker.
“For an agency which prides itself on being driven by ‘accurate’ data, this is very disappointing,” Hunt went on to say.
The CFPB pointed out that it began accepting complaints as soon as it opened its doors three years ago in July 2011. The agency currently accepts complaints on many consumer financial products, including credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts, private student loans, vehicle and other consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, debt collection and payday loans.
When consumers submit a complaint to the bureau, they fill in information such as who they are, who the complaint is against and when it occurred. They are also given a text box to describe what happened and can attach documents to the complaint.
The bureau forwards the complaint to the company, allows the company to respond, gives the consumer a tracking number and keeps the consumer updated on its status.
To date, the bureau has handled more than 400,000 complaints.
The CFPB’s Consumer Complaint Database is the nation’s largest public collection of consumer financial complaints. It includes basic, anonymous, individual-level information about the complaints received, including the date of submission, the consumer’s ZIP code, the relevant company, the product type, the issue the consumer is complaining about and the company’s response.
Adding Narratives to the Consumer Complaint Database
The bureau spelled out more details of its proposal to expand the database to include the consumer’s narrative description of what happened.
“In many ways, the narratives are the most insightful part of a complaint,” CFPB officials said. “They provide a first-hand account of the consumer’s experience and the problem they would like resolved.
“By giving consumers an option to publicly share their stories, the CFPB would greatly enhance the utility of the database, a platform designed to provide consumers with valuable information needed to make better financial choices for themselves and their families,” they continued.
The bureau went on to rattle off four addition benefits the agency contends will come from sharing the narratives, including:
— Providing context to the complaint: While the current database captures the basics of a consumer’s complaint, the bureau believes the amount of context provided is limited. Complaints are grouped into dozens of high-level categories such as “billing disputes,” “transaction issues,” or “advertising and marketing.”
Officials said, “Including the consumer’s narrative would increase the level of detail available to consumers, consumer groups, and companies in the market.”
For example, the CFPB explained that providing the complaint narratives within the mortgage category of “loan modification, collection, foreclosure,” would help determine if the consumer is being charged extra fees, the servicer has lost paperwork, or any number of other specific problems.
“Describing the circumstances can provide vital information about why the consumer believes they were harmed, and the impact that harm has had on the consumer,” the agency said.
— Spotlighting specific trends: Not only does the narrative provide context to the individual complaint, but the CFPB also thinks it can provides context to the marketplace.
“Narratives allow the public to detect trends across the consumer experience and pinpoint problems,” officials said. “With narratives, it is possible to see if a specific issue is localized in a particular geographic area or with a specific company, or if it’s a practice used by companies across the product market.”
The CFPB noted reviewers may see that a number of consumers are starting to receive a $10 mystery charge from a particular company. Or they may see that a city is experiencing a rise in complaints about specific problems with mortgage loan modification denials. Or they may see that more and more companies are failing to meet their student loan servicing obligations.
“Without the narrative, the public cannot fully connect the dots,” the CFPB said.
— Helping consumers make informed decisions: Consumers often go online to research products before they make a decision to purchase.
“Including the details of a complaint would help inform consumers who are considering a particular product or service,” officials said.
The CFPB emphasized that databases with narratives, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s SaferProducts.gov or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s SaferCar.gov, have helped inform consumers about a range of products from cribs to vehicles.
“The CFPB aims to empower consumers with the same kind of information. Reviewers could use the narrative to decide for themselves if the problems experienced by other consumers would stop them from purchasing the same product or service,” officials said.
— Spurring competition based on consumer satisfaction: With these stories readily available to the public, the bureau thinks companies may have additional incentives to address potential “shortcomings” in their businesses that could have negative impacts on consumers.
“In the end, the narratives may encourage companies to improve the overall quality of their goods and services and more vigorously compete over good customer service, all of which has the potential to improve the functioning, transparency, and efficiency of the market,” officials said.
Safeguards for Publishing Process
In an attempt to refute points raised by industry leaders such as the CBA’s Hunt, the CFPB indicated its proposed policy is geared to recognize the importance of protecting consumers’ private information, ensuring the informed consent of any consumer who participates and providing companies with an opportunity to respond.
The bureau pointed out that its proposal establishes a number of important safeguards for a clear, fair and transparent process, including:
— Consumers must opt-in: The CFPB would not publish the complaint narrative unless the consumer provides informed consent.
“This means that when consumers submit a complaint through consumerfinance.gov, they would have to affirmatively check a consent box to give the bureau permission to publish their narrative. At least initially, only narratives submitted online would be available for the opt-in,” officials said.
— No personal information will be shared: The bureau insisted it would take all reasonable steps to remove personal information from the complaint to minimize the risk of someone being able to identify the consumer.
“This means complaints would be scrubbed of information such as names, telephone numbers, account numbers, Social Security numbers and other direct identifiers,” officials said.
— Finance companies can publish their response. Operations would be given the opportunity to post a written response that would appear next to the consumer’s story.
“In most cases, this response would appear at the same time as the consumer’s narrative so that reviewers can see both sides concurrently,” the CFPB said. “This response would also be scrubbed of personal information.”
— Consumers can opt-out at any time: If a consumer decides at any time that he or she would like to withdraw consent to publish their narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database, the CFPB said he or she will have the ability to do so.
“The bureau would honor this request as soon as possible and no later than three business days,” officials said.
The bureau wrapped up its proposal assertion by emphasizing the latest move is aimed at building on the safeguards the CFPB’s database already has in place.
“The CFPB confirms the commercial relationship between the consumer and company,” officials said. “Complaints are listed in the database only after the company responds to the complaint or after it has had the complaint for 15 days, whichever comes first.”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently clarified its regulatory position to ensure the agency is aligned with last year’s Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriages.
The bureau recapped the court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional last June.
In order to fully implement this decision, the CFPB took steps to clarify how the decision affects the rules under its jurisdiction, including director Richard Cordray penning a memo to bureau staff.
In the memo, Cordray stressed that, to the extent permitted by federal law, it is the CFPB’s policy to recognize all lawful marriages valid at the time of the marriage in the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated. Cordray explained this protocol aligns the CFPB’s policy with other agencies across the federal government.
This policy applies to all of the laws, regulations, and policies that the CFPB administers, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
“This decision has important consequences for our work,” Cordray said.
“That means that when it comes to administering, enforcing, or interpreting the laws, regulations and policies within our jurisdiction, we use and interpret the terms like ‘spouse,’ ‘marriage,’ ‘married,’ ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ and any other similar terms related to family or marital status to include lawful same-sex marriages and lawfully married same-sex spouses,” Cordray went on to say.
Featuring discussions about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its proposed changes on indirect auto lending at franchised dealerships, North McArthur, president of Long McArthur Ford Lincoln, recently hosted Rep. Tim Huelskamp at his store.
During his visit with the Kansas Republican, McArthur highlighted the dealership’s economic impact on the town of Salina, such as employment and local and state taxes paid.
They also discussed the impact of possible tax changes to the last in, first out (LIFO) accounting method used by many dealers around the country.
Huelskamp represents the first Congressional district, which includes central and western parts of Kansas. He is in his second term and serves on the House Small Business Committee among others.
The National Autmobile Dealers Association reminded dealer principals and managers of steps they can take if they’re interested in hosting a local member of Congress. Dealers can contact Patrick Calpin, NADA director of grassroots advocacy, at pcalpin@nada.org or (800) 563-1556.
Two members of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee who are outspoken critics of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found another point to rail against the regulatory agency.
This time, these lawmakers shared their frustration about a report from the Federal Reserve’s Inspector General that showed the cost of renovating the CFPB’s rented headquarters has spiraled to more than $215 million. The report noted that amount is $65 million more than the agency’s estimate just six months ago and $120 million more than last year’s estimate.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, tried to put that overall figure into a different context. The Texas Republican explained the amount also equals more than $590 per square foot
Hensarling said that means the CFPB is spending much more per square foot than it cost to build the Trump World Tower ($334/square foot), the Bellagio Hotel and Casino ($330/square foot) and the Burj Khalifa in Dubai ($450/square foot).
“The renovation project has been mired in controversy,” Hensarling said. “For more than a year, members of the House Financial Services Committee have questioned CFPB officials about its rising cost, about why an agency that is renting a building is paying for renovations in the first place and the extravagance of such features as a four-story glass staircase, two-story waterfall and sunken garden.
“When they passed the Dodd-Frank Act, Democrats in Congress and the White House made the CFPB unaccountable to taxpayers and to Congress,” he continued. “We’re seeing the results of this dangerous unaccountability today in a Washington bureaucracy that is running amok, spending as much as it wants on whatever it wants. It’s outrageous.”
In addition to reporting on the project’s increasing cost, Hensarling also pointed out the Inspector General found:
—The CFPB was unable to locate any documentation of the decision to fully renovate the building.
—The CFPB failed to follow all of its own guidelines for gaining approval by its investment review board for the building renovation.
Because of these conditions, “a sound business case is not available to support the funding of the renovation,” according to the report.
Rep. Patrick McHenry, Chairman of the Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee who requested the Inspector General’s report on the CFPB renovations, described his frustrations.
“The findings of the Inspector General’s investigation are deeply troubling and lead to even more questions about the unaccountable design of the CFPB,” McHenry said.
“The continuously growing price tag is a tremendous waste of funds and, amazingly, there is still no assurance the $216 million price tag won’t grow higher,” he continued. “Now we learn the bureau, presumably taking a page out of the IRS’ playbook, has lost the documentation showing who actually gave final approval for this massive waste.
“Coupled with recent accusations of discrimination and retaliation of employees by agency leaders, it has become abundantly clear that it’s not 1700 G Street that needs an overhaul, but rather the entire structure of the CFPB,” McHenry went on to say.
While the Inspector General reports the current estimated cost of CFPB’s building renovation is $215.8 million, the lawmakers noted the building was appraised in 2011 for just $153.7 million, according to an audit report released by the Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General in December 2013.
FNI Inc. president David Bafumo noticed the vendor management portion of the latest consent order from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau closely tracks and elaborates on the bureau’s original service provider guidance bulletin.
Bafumo explained his reasoning in light of the June 19 consent order in which the CFPB demanded that GE Capital Retail Bank, now known as Synchrony Bank, to provide an estimated $225 million in relief to consumers harmed by illegal and discriminatory credit card practices. GE Capital must refund $56 million to approximately 638,000 consumers who were subjected to deceptive marketing practices.
The CFPB said in the order that any add-on compliance plan shall also include the development or revision of a written vendor management policy. The bureau spelled out several minimum requirements in that vendor management policy.
First, bureau officials want an analysis to be conducted by the bank, prior to the bank entering into a contract with any service provider, of the ability of the service provider to perform in compliance with all applicable federal consumer financial laws and the bank’s policies and procedures
Next, for new and renewed contracts, the CFPB said the written contract between the bank and the service provider must set forth the responsibilities of each party, especially these elements:
—The service provider’s specific performance responsibilities and duty to maintain adequate internal controls over the marketing, sales, delivery, servicing, and fulfillment of services for the add-on Products
—The service provider’s responsibilities and duty to provide adequate training on applicable federal consumer financial law and the Bank's policies and procedures to all service provider employees or agents engaged in the marketing, sales, delivery, servicing, and fulfillment of services for the add-on product
—Granting the bank the authority to conduct periodic onsite reviews of the service provider’s controls, performance, and information systems as they relate to the marketing, sales, delivery, servicing, and fulfillment of services for the add-on product
—The bank's right to terminate the contract if the service provider materially fails to comply with the terms specified in the contract
Furthermore, regulators are looking for periodic onsite review by the bank of the service provider’s controls, performance, and information systems.
After reviewing that segment of the consent order, Bafumo said, “Another reminder that financial institutions must conduct due diligence and document it in the selection of a product provider — plus enhanced details on what financial institution clients should insist is included in their product producer agreements
“This order’s multiple references to ‘on-site review’ of service providers suggests that minimum due diligence efforts must include an onsite investigation by someone who knows what to look for,” he continued.
Bafumo closed his analysis by drilling down further on how the decrees can be applied to auto finance products.
“These terms make clear the client's responsibility for making sure product providers’ agents or employees that interact with customers or dealer partners are properly trained in applicable consumer financial law and client policies and procedures,” he said.
“In addition, this order’s language makes it plain that responsibility is not limited to the service provider’s compliance ability and efforts but also ‘fulfillment of services’ for the product itself,” Bafumo went on to say.
“For auto finance products, that means financial institutions need a complete understanding of the administrative policies and operational ability of their service contract, GAP and financial protection product partners and processes in place to monitor performance,” he added.
Editor’s Note: This report is the second in a series of analysis from FNI focused on the latest consent order from the CFPB. The first installment can be found here.
Though a Supreme Court decision last week only included a decision invalidating President’s Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, the chairman of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee remains adamant that the president’s recess tapping of the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be thrown out, too.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he filled vacancies on the NLRB in 2012, the same time period he tapped Richard Cordray to lead the CFPB. The decision trigged another stern response from Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Financial Services Committee and is an outspoken lawmaker against how the bureau operates.
“President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to head the CFPB at the same time and in the exact same manner as these unconstitutional NLRB appointees. Clearly and unquestionably, President Obama exceeded his authority when he appointed director Cordray, just as he exceeded his authority when he made these NLRB appointments,” Hensarling said.
“The unanimous judgment from the highest court in the land reaffirms and validates our committee’s decision not to hear testimony from director Cordray on the CFPB’s semi-annual report until he was validly and legally serving in his position,” Hensarling continued. “By the time the Senate confirmed Mr. Cordray in July 2013, he had served as director for 18 months without legal authority.
“This fact calls into question the legality of the official actions he took during this time period and may represent a legal risk for the CFPB,” the lawmaker went on to say.
However, about a month after his Senate confirmation, Cordray made a move to validate the CFPB actions orchestrated under his watch.
“I believe that the actions I took during the period I was serving as a recess appointee were legally authorized and entirely proper,” he said in a regulatory notice dated Aug. 27, 2013. “To avoid any possible uncertainty, however, I hereby affirm and ratify any and all actions I took during that period.”
The ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee reiterated her position as the verbal sparring between Hensarling and Cordray continued. Rep. Maxine Waters commended the work of the CFPB when Cordray testified in front of the committee earlier this month.
“It saddens me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have aligned themselves with Wall Street, predatory lenders and other bad actors in our financial system at the expense of protecting consumers,’ said Waters, a California Democrat.
“I know in my district, the bureau has been helpful with all manner of constituent requests, and I’m confident that the constituents we all serve benefit from the bureau’s expertise — despite opponents’ unwillingness to embrace its mission,” she added.
