Richard Cordray

That is the law we are required to enforce. We will enforce it vigorously, and we believe to root out discrimination, which nobody supports, in any of these markets.

The U.S. Supreme Court last June reaffirmed that disparate impact discrimination is the law of the land.

I stand by and believe this was a reasonable approach to how to get relief to hundreds of thousands of consumers who were discriminated against under the disparate impact theory that I know some people disagree with, but the Supreme Court…

[a]rbitration clauses, as they are used today both in the field of consumer finance and more generally, often have been deliberately designed to block Americans from effective means of vindicating their rights.

That is an execrable practice. It is against the law. We have taken strong enforcement actions against it.

I think Congress legislated that limitation to protect service members against being exploited while they are trying to protect and defend our country.

I think we are just trying to put consumers in a position so they can make choices that they won't regret later, so that they can know what they really would want to know at the time.

the irresponsible lending that precipitated the crisis and blew up the mortgage market and blew up the economy pushed most lending now to GSEs and eliminated, destroyed the secondary financing market, which has not yet recovered.

$11 billion turned back into the economy, in the hands of ordinary working people, is pretty good.

I think that enforcing the law fairly promotes economic freedom.

We enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. We work with the Justice Department on those matters.

I read and see the stories about the NSA. I am an American citizen. I have the same concerns that I think you do about that.