Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1265

Does the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Need to be More Transparent?

Argument in favor

Secrecy for national security purposes is one thing, but the reasoning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s closed meetings is very unclear. Shouldn’t it want consumers to know about the work it does?

Cary's Opinion
···
04/07/2015
Transparency almost always ensures a better result.
Like (8)
Follow
Share
ThomasParker's Opinion
···
05/23/2015
Transparent? This agency should be eliminated. It's incredible how many agencies exist to protect consumers, yet all they do is impose costs and reduce availability of choices.
Like (7)
Follow
Share
ark4162's Opinion
···
04/07/2015
Everything in government should be transparent except when it has a real measurable affect on national security.
Like (7)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This is part of a larger legislative attack on the CFPB that would ultimately weaken consumer and investor protections. The public doesn’t really need to know about the details of the CFPB’s meetings, and CFPB already offers agendas and summaries.

hectord's Opinion
···
04/07/2015
Yet another attack on the CFPB. If you want to know what the meetings are about, read the summaries that they already provide.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Ed's Opinion
···
04/07/2015
Most meetings should be open BUT if it would hurt their investigation then some ssecrecy might be required
Like (3)
Follow
Share
Rich's Opinion
···
04/08/2015
Leave Warren alone. I am fed up with the corporate world relentlessly perusing the upper hand over the consumer. You can look over Warren's shoulder when the consumer can sit in on a closed board meeting. Until then, shut your holes.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 1265?

This bill would require all committees and subcommittees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) — requiring them to publish meeting schedules and agendas, hold open meetings when possible, and publish summaries of their meetings.


Created in 2010, CFPB is primarily responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector — that means, as their website states:
"Ensuring that consumers get the information they need to make the financial decisions they believe are best for themselves and their families — that prices are clear up front, that risks are visible, and that nothing is buried in fine print. In a market that works, consumers should be able to make direct comparisons among products and no provider should be able to use unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices." 

CFPB oversees banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies. They are a resource for people in the U.S. who want to file complaints against these institutions for not following the guidelines above. 

If passed, this bill would also amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act to specifically apply FACA to committees formed through the CFPB. The CFPB would also be responsible for creating a government-wide database for congressional oversight and public availability. 

Impact

Members of the public who want to know the details of CFPB meetings, the CFPB, and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1265

$1.00 Million
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable. However, a CBO analysis of a previous version of this bill done in June 2014, found that implementation would increase the CFPB’s spending by about $1 million over the 2015-2024 period, which is about $100,000 per year. This would largely be the result of increased reports and offering accommodations for public meetings.

More Information

In-Depth:

The CFPB notes in its FAQs that “although not required to comply with FACA, the bureau complies with the spirit of FACA by providing transparency into the discussions of each advisory group.”


This legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 56 to 2.


Of Note:

Sponsoring Rep. Sean Duffy (R-PA) requested to attend the CFPB’s February 26 and 27 committee meetings of its Consumer Advisory Committee, but he and his staff were told by the CFPB via email that “we cannot accommodate the Congressman’s request.” This bill was introduced the following month. 


Media:

Sponsoring Rep. Sean Duffy (R-PA) Press Release

ACA International

Housingwire

Credit Union National Association (In Favor)

U.S. Chamber of Commerce (In Favor)


Summary by Eric Revell 

(Photo Credit: Flickr user meckert75)

AKA

Bureau Advisory Commission Transparency Act

Official Title

To apply the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed April 13th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 401 Yea / 2 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
    IntroducedMarch 4th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Transparency almost always ensures a better result.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Yet another attack on the CFPB. If you want to know what the meetings are about, read the summaries that they already provide.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Everything in government should be transparent except when it has a real measurable affect on national security.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Transparent? This agency should be eliminated. It's incredible how many agencies exist to protect consumers, yet all they do is impose costs and reduce availability of choices.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Giving consumers the most information they can will result in individuals who have a better understanding of what they are getting themselves into financially.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Most meetings should be open BUT if it would hurt their investigation then some ssecrecy might be required
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Have to watch the crooks or they will continue to fleece us. I guess that would be business as usual
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    What is accomplished through closed meetings? If something in this meeting is highly sensitive, close the meeting but these should be open by default.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Leave Warren alone. I am fed up with the corporate world relentlessly perusing the upper hand over the consumer. You can look over Warren's shoulder when the consumer can sit in on a closed board meeting. Until then, shut your holes.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    My credit is poor, and if I could easily see what I owe and to whom without punishment for knowing it would be fixable. The way it is now makes it too difficult for me.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT needs more transparency.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    More transparency.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    What people are missing is the fact that financial reform cannot occur if people in congress cannot hide their opinions from lobbyists, corrupt evil billionaires etc. Meed also campaign finance reform NOW.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Is it not transparent? CFPB has done a lot for consumers everywhere. I trust Warren to weigh in if systematic issues arise.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The house should worry a lot more about transparency in other processes it engages in. Any congressman that voted in favor of this clearly has zero concern for the bulk of Americans who are potentially adversely affected by things like predatory lending practices, etc.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Entire commercial financial review board should be repealed and gotten rid of
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Without creating risk to personal information privacy and national security for U.S. citizens, all federal bureaucracies activities should be open to scrutiny by us taxpayers who pay to maintain them. We can then learn which are redundant, unnecessary, wasteful, and useless; and we can demand they be eliminated. How can that be a problem except to those who "work" for and rely on burdensome and inane government departments for their income?
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Transparency in groups like this shouldn't even be optional. There is absolutely no reason to keep any information from anyone...so why is this even an issue?
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Typically, it is counterproductive to have an entire nation of back-seat drivers trying to dictate how a system designed to support them should function. Leave the details to those who understand them.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE