¶ ANTI-CFPB CRUSADER
While McHenry has taken millions of dollars from the financial industry, he has been a staunch opponent of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, going as far as calling its first director an “‘unelected and unaccountable’” bureaucrat and repeatedly supporting legislation weakening the Bureau’s authority and effectiveness. In February 2023, McHenry joined the financial industry in bashing the CFPB’s efforts to protect consumers from credit card late fees after receiving over $1.1 million in campaign contributions from the three banking trade groups opposed to the CFPB’s credit card rule and the eight largest U.S. credit card issuers.
¶ Rep. Patrick McHenry Is A Longtime Critic Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Having Called Its First Director An “‘Unelected And Unaccountable Bureaucrat’” As Chair Of The Oversight Committee’s Financial Crisis Subcommittee And Frequently Introducing And Supporting Legislation Weakening The Bureau’s Authority And Independence.
¶ While Chair Of The Oversight Committee’s TARP Subcommittee, Rep. McHenry Called The CFPB’s First Director Richard Cordray An “‘Unelected And Unaccountable Bureaucrat’” During His First Congressional Testimony And Criticized The Bureau—Cordray Ultimately Recovered $12 Billion In Fines From Major Banks While He Served From 2012 To 2017.
2012: Rep. McHenry Presided Over The House Oversight Committee’s TARP Subcommittee When It Called Richard Cordray For “His First Congressional Testimony As The Official Director” Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “In his first congressional testimony as the official director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican lawmakers still seething over his controversial recess appointment. [...] Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who chairs the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, said Mr. Cordray's recess appointment by President Barack Obama was ‘constitutionally questionable’ and jeopardized ‘the sanctity of the bureau's operations.’” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 01/25/12]
McHenry Called Cordray’s Recess Appointment “‘Constitutionally Questionable’” And Said It Undermined “‘The Sanctity Of The Bureau’s Operations.’” “Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who chairs the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, said Mr. Cordray's recess appointment by President Barack Obama was ‘constitutionally questionable’ and jeopardized ‘the sanctity of the bureau's operations.’” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 01/25/12]
McHenry Said The CFPB Had “‘Unprecedented And Ill-Defined Power’” And Called Cordray An “‘Unelected And Unaccountable Bureaucrat.’” “‘If having a regulator with unprecedented and ill-defined power was not enough, the administration decided to double down by bringing into question the validity of its director,’ Mr. McHenry said, calling Mr. Cordray an ‘unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat.’” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 01/25/12]
Richard Cordray Was The CFPB’s First Director And “Recovered $12 Billion In Fines” From Major Banks While He Served From 2012 To 2017. “Observers expect that Chopra will lead the CFPB in the spirit of its first director, Richard Cordray, who led the agency from 2012 to 2017 and recovered $12 billion in fines from banks such as Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.” [HousingWire, 09/30/21]
¶ 2014: Rep. McHenry Introduced The Bureau Arbitration Fairness Act, A Bill To Eliminate The CFPB’s Ability To Prohibit Or Limit Companies’ Forced Arbitration Agreements With Consumers—Reps. Hank Johnson (D-GA) And John Conyers (D-MI) Said The Bill Would “‘Insulate The Nation’s Largest Financial Institutions From All Legal Recourse, Even When They Have Violated The Law.’”
May 2014: Rep. McHenry Introduced The Bureau Arbitration Fairness Act, Which Did Not Proceed Past The House Financial Services Committee. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/23]
May 2014: Reps. Hank Johnson (D-GA) And John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) Opposed The Bureau Arbitration Fairness Act, Saying It Would “‘Insulate The Nation’s Largest Financial Institutions From All Legal Recourse, Even When They Have Violated The Law.’” “Today, Congressman Henry C. ‘Hank’ Johnson (D-Ga.) and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) sent a letter to the Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit in opposition to the ‘Bureau Arbitration Fairness Act.’ [...] ‘This afternoon, a Financial Services Subcommittee is considering the ‘Bureau Arbitration Fairness Act,’ legislation that would insulate the nation’s largest financial institutions from all legal recourse, even when they have violated the law.’” [Rep. Hank Johnson, 05/21/14]
Reps. Johnson And Conyers Noted The Bill Would Eliminate The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Ability To Prohibit Or Even Limit The Use Of Forced Arbitration Agreements In Consumer Financial Contracts.’” “‘Specifically, this bill would eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) ability to prohibit or even limit the use of forced arbitration agreements in consumer financial contracts.’” [Rep. Hank Johnson, 05/21/14]
¶ 2017: Rep. McHenry Called The CFPB’s Arbitration Rule—Which Made It Easier For Harmed Consumers To Join Together In Class-Action Lawsuits Against Abusive Financial Services Companies— “Deeply Flawed” And Co-Sponsored A Resolution That Eventually Invalidated The Rule.
The CFPB’s Arbitration Rule, Issued In July 2017, Made It “Easier For Consumers To File Or Join An Existing Group Lawsuit If They Are Harmed By A Financial Service Provider.” “Our new arbitration rule will make it easier for consumers to file or join an existing group lawsuit if they are harmed by a financial service provider, such as a bank or credit card company.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, accessed 01/20/23]
- The CFPB Issued Its Final Rule On Arbitration Agreements On July 10, 2017. [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, accessed 01/20/23]
The CFPB’s Arbitration Rule Prevented Financial Services Companies From “Inserting Agreements In Contracts That Prevent Customers From Filing Class-Action Lawsuits.” “The Republican-led House passed a resolution on Tuesday to block a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that was published earlier this month; that rule prohibits financial service companies from inserting agreements in contracts that prevent customers from filing class-action lawsuits against a company. Those agreements, which have become popular in recent years, instead require consumers to settle complaints through arbitration, a less public and often less costly process favored by financial institutions.” [The Center for Public Integrity, 07/28/17]
July 2017: Rep. McHenry Co-Sponsored H.J. Res. 111, A Resolution To Disapprove Of The CFPB’s Arbitration Rule. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/23]
- H.J. Res 111 Passed The House On July 25, 2017, And Became Law On November 1, 2017. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/20/23]
After H.J. Res. 111 Was Signed Into Law, The CFPB’s Arbitration Rule Was Invalidated. “On Nov. 1, 2017, the President signed a joint resolution passed by Congress disapproving the Arbitration Agreements Rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Pursuant to the joint resolution, the Arbitration Agreements Rule has no force or effect. On Nov. 22, 2017, the Bureau published a notice removing the Arbitration Agreements Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, accessed 01/20/23]
July 2017: After H.J. Res. 111 Passed The House, Rep. McHenry Issued A Statement Calling The Arbitration Rule A “‘Deeply Flawed Regulation That Is Little More Than A Handout To Trial Lawyers And Special Interests,’” Adding That The CFPB Was “‘Constitutionally Suspect.’” “Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry (NC-10) released the following statement on the passage of H.J. Res. 111, providing for Congressional disapproval of the CFPB's rule relating to ‘Arbitration Agreements’: ‘Today, for the fifteenth time this year, the House has used the Congressional Review Act to undo misguided, eleventh-hour rulemaking by Obama-era bureaucrats. This time it was the Constitutionally suspect CFPB’s anti-arbitration rule, a deeply flawed regulation that is little more than a handout to trial lawyers and special interests. By undoing this rule, the House has acted to actually advance the CFPB’s stated goal: protecting American consumers.’” [Rep. Patrick McHenry, 07/25/17]
The Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights Urged Congress To Reject H.J. Res. 111, Arguing That “Overturning The CFPB’s Rule Will Enable Big Banks, Payday Lenders, And Other Financial Companies To Force Victims Of Fraud, Discrimination, Or Other Unlawful Conduct Into A ‘Kangaroo Court’ Process.” “On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, I urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 111, a resolution providing for Congressional disapproval of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s final rule on forced arbitration clauses. Overturning the CFPB’s rule will enable big banks, payday lenders, and other financial companies to force victims of fraud, discrimination, or other unlawful conduct into a ‘kangaroo court’ process where their claims are decided by hired arbitration firms rather than by judges and juries – harming consumers and undermining civil rights and consumer protection laws.” [The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 07/25/17]
¶ 2017: McHenry Voted For H.R. 1009, The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, A Bill That Sought To Undermine The CFPB's Independence And "Would Have A Crippling Effect On The Regulation Of Our Financial System."
March 2017: Rep. McHenry Voted For H.R. 1009, The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act. [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 03/01/17]
- H.R. 1009 Passed The House On March 1, 2017. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/23]
H.R. 1009 Threatened The CFPB's "Freedom As An Independent Agency To Enact Regulation." The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s freedom as an independent agency to enact regulation could soon change due to a new bill working its way through Congress. […] The bureau wouldn’t be the only agency affected. Other independent agencies include: the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Credit Union Administration." [HousingWire, 03/10/17]
Public Citizen Argued H.R. 1009 "Would Render The Independence Of These Agencies Meaningless." "This bill would render the independence of these agencies meaningless, and make agencies critical to protecting consumers and holding Wall Street accountable, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, independent in name only." [Public Citizen, 02/28/17]
Americans For Financial Reform Also Argued H.R. 1009 "Would Have A Crippling Effect On The Regulation Of Our Financial System." "This legislation would have a crippling effect on the regulation of our financial system. It would add an unnecessary, burdensome, and time-consuming layer of bureaucracy to the process of completing oversight rules for our largest financial institutions. It would give Wall Street lawyers numerous new tools to overturn agency actions in court, based on compliance with a lengthy, vague, and contradictory new set of analytic hurdles. Finally, it would violate the independence of financial regulatory agencies that are designed to be insulated from White House influence." [Americans for Financial Reform, 03/01/18]
¶ 2018: McHenry Voted For H.R. 1116, The Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk (TAILOR) Act of 2017, Which Would Have Forced The CFPB And Other Regulators To “Prioritize The Costs Of Regulations To Financial Institutions,” Among Other Anti-Consumer Provisions.
March 2018: Rep. McHenry Voted For H.R. 1116, The Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk (TAILOR) Act of 2017. [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 03/14/18]
- H.R. 1116 Passed The House On March 14, 2018. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/23]
Americans For Financial Reform Argued H.R. 1116 Would "Force Regulators To Prioritize The Costs Of Regulations To Financial Institutions." "This sweeping mandate would force regulators to prioritize the costs of regulations to financial institutions over the offsetting benefits to consumers and the general public. The mandate implies that regulators would be unable to act to protect the public if such action led to any significant costs to Wall Street banks." [Americans for Financial Reform, 03/12/18]
H.R. 1116 Would Allow Banks And Corporations New Ways To Challenge Consumer Protections Issued By The CFPB And Other Regulators. "If enacted, H.R. 1116 would undo these efforts by providing every financial institution overseen by agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with new opportunities to challenge rulemakings in court if they felt a regulation was not uniquely tailored to their individual firm." [House Financial Services Committee, 03/06/18]
H.R. 1116 Would Require Banking Regulators To Tailor Their Actions For Banks' "Specific Risk Profiles." "H.R. 1116 would require the federal banking regulators—the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the Federal Reserve—to adapt their regulatory actions to the specific risk profiles and business models of financial institutions that are subject to regulation." [Congressional Budget Office, 12/12/17]
¶ 2017: In The House Financial Services Committee, McHenry Voted To Advance H.R. 3072, The Bureau Of Consumer Financial Protection Examination And Reporting Threshold Act, A Bill That Would Have Slashed The Number Of Banks Under CFPB Oversight By Two-Thirds.
November 2017: In A House Financial Service Committee Vote, Rep. McHenry Voted To Advance H.R. 3072, The Bureau Of Consumer Financial Protection Examination And Reporting Threshold Act Of 2017:
[House Financial Services Committee, 11/21/17]
H.R. 3072 Would Have Reduced The Number Of Federally-Insured Depository Banks Under CFPB Oversight By Two-Thirds. "As of June 30, 2017, the Consumer Bureau supervised 124 insured depository institutions out of a total of 11,483, representing only one percent of financial institutions. Nevertheless, these institutions represent about 81 percent of all industry assets […] H.R. 3072, however, would revoke the Consumer Bureau’s supervision and enforcement authority for nearly 2⁄3 of depository institutions subject to Consumer Bureau supervision […]" [House Financial Services Committee, 11/21/17]
House Financial Services Democrats Criticized The Bill For Preventing The CFPB From Taking Action Against Large Banks Worth Between $10 Billion And $50 Billion, Despite The Costliest Bank Failure For The Government During The Financial Crisis" Being A $30 Billion Bank. “MINORITY VIEWS [...] H.R. 3072, ‘the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold Act,’’ would significantly undermine a key authority of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), by preventing the Consumer Bureau from supervising, and enforcing its rules against large banks and credit unions with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion." [House Financial Services Committee, 11/21/17]
- The "Costliest Bank Failure For The Government During The Financial Crisis" Was That Of A $30 Billion Bank. "Notably, the costliest bank failure for the government during the financial crisis was not that of a megabank, but of IndyMac Bank, which had total consolidated assets of $30 billion but caused $12 billion in losses to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Deposit Insurance Fund." [House Financial Services Committee, 11/21/17]
¶ 2017: Rep. McHenry Voted For H.R. 998, The Searching For And Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) Act, An Anti-Regulatory Bill That Would “Prioritize Corporate Profits Over The Health And Safety Of The American Public" And Would Have Overridden Agency Expertise With An “Unelected Commission.”
March 2017: Rep. McHenry Voted For H.R. 998, The Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act (SCRUB) Act. [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 03/01/17]
- H.R. 998 Passed The House On March 1, 2017. [Congress.gov, accessed 01/10/22]
Oversight Committee Democrats Opposed The Bill, Arguing H.R. 998 "Would Prioritize Corporate Profits Over The Health And Safety Of The American Public." "Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 998. We reject the view that this bill would be a panacea for eliminating regulations that have unnecessary regulatory costs on our economy. Through the creation of an unelected Commission, this bill would duplicate work agencies are already doing to review and repeal regulations— at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million—and it would prioritize corporate profits over the health and safety of the American public." [House Oversight Committee, 02/21/17]
H.R. 998 Would Have "Force[d] Agencies To Prioritize Between Existing Protections And Responding To New Threats To Health And Safety." "The bill establishes a regulatory 'cut-go' process that would force agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to health and safety." [House Oversight Committee, 02/21/17]
H.R. 998 Would Have Overridden The Expertise Of The Agencies With An "Unelected Commission." "The bill would take regulatory review out of the hands of agency subject-matter experts and place it in an unelected Commission. The Commission could devise any methodology for its review of rules, and no rules would be exempt." [House Oversight Committee, 02/21/17]
The Center For Responsible Lending Argued H.R. 998 Would Have Made It "Significantly More Difficult" For Regulations To Be Issued. "H.R. 998 would establish a new bureaucracy empowered to dismantle long-established science-based public health and safety standards and would make it significantly more difficult for Congress and federal agencies to implement essential future protections." [Center for Responsible Lending, 02/27/17]
¶ House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Joined Industry Attacks Against The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Efforts To Limit Credit Card Late Fees After Receiving Over $1.1 Million In Industry Cash.
¶ In February 2023, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Announced A New Proposed Rule Limiting Credit Card Late Fees.
¶ In February 2023, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Proposed A New Rule Limiting Credit Card Late Fees After The Federal Reserve Created An Immunity Provision Allowing Late Fees Of As High As $41 After The Passage Of The 2009 Credit Card Act Which Sought To Ban Excessive Late Fees.
February 1, 2023: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Proposed A New Rule “Curb[Ing] Excessive Credit Card Late Fees That Cost American Families About $12 Billion Each Year” Which The Bureau Estimated Would Save Consumers “As Much As $9 Billion Per Year.” “Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed a rule to curb excessive credit card late fees that cost American families about $12 billion each year. Major credit card issuers continue to profit off late fees that are protected by an expansive immunity provision. Credit card companies have also relied on this provision to hike fees with inflation, even if they face no additional collection costs. The proposed rule would help ensure that over-the-top late fee amounts are illegal. Based on the CFPB’s estimates, the proposal could reduce late fees by as much as $9 billion per year.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 02/01/23]
Although Exorbitant Credit Card Fees Were Banned Under The 2009 Credit CARD Act, Federal Reserve Created An Immunity Provision Allowing Credit Card Companies To Charge Late Fees As High As $41.
“The Federal Reserve Board, by regulation, created the immunity provisions to allow credit card companies to avoid scrutiny of whether their late fees met the reasonable and proportional standard. Over time, those provisions have risen with inflation to $30 for an initial late payment and $41 for subsequent late payments. The CFPB estimates that the income generated by the largest issuers from late fees is approximately five times greater than the collection costs that the companies incur for late payment violations. In 2020, for example, credit card companies charged approximately $12 billion in late fees, which represented more than 10% of all credit card interest and fees charged to consumers.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 02/01/23]
- According To CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, The 2009 Credit CARD Act Nominally Banned Exorbitant Credit Card Fees. “Congress banned exorbitant credit card fees under the Credit CARD Act in 2009, but an immunity provision instituted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors enabled card companies to dodge enforcement standards, said Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” [CNBC, 02/01/23]
¶ The CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Limit Credit Card Late Fees To $8, Eliminate Automatic Inflation Adjustments For Late Fees, And Restrict Any Late Fee Charge To 25% Of The Credit Card’s Minimum Payment.
The CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Lower The Immunity Provision’s Fee Limit From $41 To $8. “Lower the immunity provision dollar amount for late fees to $8: The CFPB has preliminarily found that late fee income exceeds associated collection costs by a factor of five. Because the immunity provision currently allows issuers to charge late fees of up to $41, the CFPB believes that a late fee of $8 would be sufficient for most issuers to cover collection costs incurred as a result of late payments. The $8 immunity provision would apply to any missed payment. Companies would be able to charge above the immunity provision so long as they could prove the higher fee is necessary to cover their incurred collection costs.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 02/01/23]
The CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Also “Eliminate The Automatic Annual Inflation Adjustment For The Immunity Provision Amount.” “End the automatic annual inflation adjustment: The CFPB’s proposal would eliminate the automatic annual inflation adjustment for the immunity provision amount. This adjustment is not required by law, nor is it necessarily reflective of how collection costs change over time. The CFPB would instead monitor market conditions and the immunity provision amount for potential adjustments as necessary.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 02/01/23]
Lastly, The CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would “Restrict Any Late Fee Charge To 25% Of The Minimum Payment To Be More Consistent With Congress’s Intent To Authorize Only Reasonable And Proportional Late Fee Amounts.” “Cap late fees at 25% of the required minimum payment: The current rule allows a card issuer to potentially charge a late fee that is 100% of the minimum payment owed by the cardholder. The CFPB proposes to restrict any late fee charge to 25% of the minimum payment to be more consistent with Congress’s intent to authorize only reasonable and proportional late fee amounts.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 02/01/23]
¶ House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry Followed Major Banking Trade Groups In Attacking The CFPB’s Proposed Credit Card Rule While Using Similar Rhetoric in Defense Of Credit Card Late Fees.
¶ Major Banking Trade Groups—Including The American Bankers Association (ABA), The Independent Community Bankers Of America (ICBA), And The Consumer Bankers Association (CBA)—Came Out Against The CFPB’s Proposed Credit Card Rule Just Hours After Its Announcement.
February 1, 2023: The American Bankers Association Came Out Against The CFPB Proposed Rule, With Its President And CEO, Rob Nichols, Saying The Rule Would “Harm Consumers By Reducing Competition And Access To Credit.” “Against strong objections from the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the White House today proposed to eliminate a longstanding safe harbor that banks of all sizes rely upon when setting late fees on credit card payments. Citing “excessive credit card late fees,” the CFPB proposed slashing the safe harbor dollar amount for late fees from $30 to $8 and eliminating a higher safe harbor dollar amount for late fees for subsequent violations of the same type; eliminating the annual inflation adjustment for the safe harbor amount that was provided by the Federal Reserve Board in 2010; and capping late fee amounts at 25% of the required payment. [...] ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols blasted the agency’s decision, saying it would harm consumers by reducing competition and access to credit. ‘If the proposal is enacted, credit card issuers will be forced to adjust to the new risks by reducing credit lines, tightening standards for new accounts and raising APRs for all consumers, including the millions who pay on time,’ he said.” [ABA Banking Journal, 02/01/23]
February 1, 2023: Independent Community Bankers Of America (ICBA) President And CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey Issued A Statement Voicing Opposition To The CFPB’s Proposed Rule, Stating The Association “‘Caution[s] Against Adversely Affecting Small Issuers, Needlessly Restricting Access To Credit In Local Communities, And Mispresenting How Community Banks Meet The Credit Card Needs Of Their Customers.’ “Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) President and CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey issued the following statement on today’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed rule on credit card fees for late payments. ‘While ICBA and the nation’s community banks review today’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed rule on credit card late fees, we caution against adversely affecting small issuers, needlessly restricting access to credit in local communities, and mispresenting how community banks meet the credit card needs of their customers.’” [ICBA, 02/01/23]
- Romero Rainey Went On To Defend Credit Card Late Fees As “‘Deter[ring] Late Payments And Help[ing] Offset The Significant Costs To Issuers.’” “‘As relationship bankers, community banks offer credit cards as a service to their customers under contracts voluntarily entered into by these consumers. Credit card late fees — which are clearly disclosed and represent a small portion of the cost of credit cards to customers — deter late payments and help offset the significant costs to issuers. Considering these costs, current practices are appropriate and do not constitute ‘junk fees,’ despite the CFPB’s misrepresentation of the community bank business model.’” [ICBA, 02/01/23
February 1, 2023: Consumer Bankers Association (CBA) President and CEO Lindsey Johnson Slammed The CFPB’s Proposed Rule As “‘The Latest Example Of The Bureau Seeking To Advance A Political Agenda That Will Harm, Rather Than Help, The Very People They Are Responsible For Serving,’” Adding That “‘It Is Deeply Unfortunate And Puzzling That Policymakers Would Take Action That Could Ultimately Limit Consumers’ Access To [Credit Cards] At A Time When They Are Needed Most.’” “Consumer Bankers Association (CBA) President and CEO Lindsey Johnson today released the following statement after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would limit the safe harbor amount credit card issuers can charge consumers for overdue payments: ‘This announcement is just the latest example of the Bureau seeking to advance a political agenda that will harm, rather than help, the very people they are responsible for serving. Millions of Americans rely on credit cards to make everyday purchases and cover emergency expenses. It is deeply unfortunate and puzzling that policymakers would take action that could ultimately limit consumers’ access to these valued financial products at a time when they are needed most.’” [Consumer Bankers Association, 02/01/23]
¶ The Day After Banking Industry Groups Came Out Against The CFPB’s Proposed Rule, House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Released A Statement Slamming the Rule As “Limit[ing] Consumer Options, Benefits, And Punish[ing] Borrowers In Good Standing.”
February 2, 2023: House Financials Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Released A Statement Attacking The CFPB’s Proposed Rule As “Limit[ing] Consumer Options, Benefits, And Punish[ing] Borrowers In Good Standing.” “Today, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), issued the following statement in response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding credit card fees, which would limit consumer options, benefits, and punish borrowers in good standing.” [House Financial Services Committee, 02/02/23]
McHenry’s Statement Went On To Criticize The Proposal As “‘Limit[ing] Loyalty Benefits For Consumers, While Forcing Borrowers In Good Standing To Foot The Bill For Those Who May Be Late On Their Payments.’” “‘At a time when more American families are carrying credit card debt due to Democrat-induced inflation, Director Chopra is pushing a proposed rule that would raise costs for all credit card users,’ said Chairman McHenry. ‘This proposal would also limit loyalty benefits for consumers, while forcing borrowers in good standing to foot the bill for those who may be late on their payments. In fact, Director Chopra is attacking the same tool—fees—that the IRS uses to deter late tax payments.’”[House Financial Services Committee, 02/02/23]
McHenry’s Statement Ended With Him Vowing That The “‘House Financial Services Committee Will Not Allow Director Chopra To Punish Consumers Solely To Placate Progressive Activists.’” “‘Additionally, it’s troubling that this supposedly independent agency is coordinating this announcement with the White House for political purposes. Under my leadership, the House Financial Services Committee will not allow Director Chopra to punish consumers solely to placate progressive activists.’” [House Financial Services Committee, 02/02/23]
¶ Over His Congressional Career, Rep. Patrick McHenry Has Received Over $1.1 Million In Campaign Contributions From The Three Banking Trade Groups Opposed To The CFPB’s Credit Card Rule And The Eight Largest U.S. Credit Card Issuers.
¶ Over His Congressional Career, Rep. McHenry Has Received $334,000 From The Three Banking Trade Groups That Came Out Against The CFPB’s Proposed Credit Card Rule.
Over His Congressional Career, Rep. McHenry Has Received $334,000 From The Three Banking Trade Groups That Came Out Against The CFPB’s Proposed Credit Card Rule:
| Banking Trade Group | Amount |
| American Bankers Association | $148,000 |
| Independent Community Bankers Of America | $118,500 |
| Consumer Bankers Association | $67,500 |
|
TOTAL: |
$334,000 |
¶ Over His Congressional Career, Rep. McHenry Has Received $783,000 From The Eight Largest U.S. Credit Card Issuers.
According To The Nilson Report, The Largest U.S. Credit Card Issuers By 2020 Transaction Volumes Were:
- Chase: $743.5 billion
- American Express: $673.9 billion
- Citibank: $399.8 billion
- Capital One: $353.1 billion
- Bank of America: $339.4 billion
- Discover: $142.8 billion
- U.S. Bank: $136.8 billion
- Wells Fargo: $101.4 billion
[U.S. News Money, 02/17/22]
- The Nilson Report Considers Itself The "Most Respected Source Of News And Analysis Of The Global Card And Mobile Payment Industry," Providing "Credit, Debit, And Prepaid Card Issuer, Acquirer, And Technology Vendor Statistics Not Found In Any Other Trade Journal." "The Nilson Report, in its 52th year of publication, is the most respected source of news and analysis of the global card and mobile payment industry. The by-subscription-only newsletter provides credit, debit, and prepaid card issuer, acquirer, and technology vendor statistics not found in any other trade journal, as well as concise technology, personnel, and product news and updates." [Nilson Report, accessed 02/02/23]
Over His Congressional Career, Rep. McHenry Has Received $783,000 From The Eight Largest Credit Card Issuers:
| Credit Card Issuer | Amount |
| Chase | $115,000 |
| American Express | $81,500 |
| Citibank | $115,000 |
| Capital One | $108,000 |
| Bank of America | $131,000 |
| Discover | $45,000 |
| U.S. Bank | $79,000 |
| Wells Fargo | $108,500 |
|
TOTAL: |
$783,000 |