On the recordMarch 6, 2018
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter today. It is kind of interesting that we have before us an amendment that basically is something that deals with a financial services bill, something that deals with a financial services issue, yet we had the EPA and a whole bunch of other agencies brought into the discussion here, which has nothing to do with what we are trying to talk about here today. The amendment talks about the President or his immediate family members. How is it possible that, unless those family members have the authority to make the request, they even should be considered? This is sort of pulling things out of the air here that make no sense to me. This is a very simple bill that we have where all we are looking at trying to do is take the EGRPRA law that says that, every 10 years, all the rules and regulations are reviewed. All we are doing is putting two agencies back into this group of agencies that are under review, one that was not even in existence at the time of the bill's passage back in the nineties, the CFPB; and the other one that needs to be included is the National Credit Union. All we are doing is taking that 10-year review down to 7. Why is this controversial? We are taking an agency that was not even included in this originally and putting it under the purview of this bill so that there can be a review of the rules and regulations. Is there lack of transparency on the other side?…
