So again, we appreciate the indulgence of the director as well as other members here. At this point we are going to recognize the gentleman from washington for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. Cordray, thanks so much for being here. The testimony from earlier in the day reminded me of a conclusion i had come to quite some time ago about what the best thing that could conceivably happen to congress would be. And it would be this. Fewer adjectives, more announce. Fewer decibels, more listening. So im going to endeavor to listen. I want to first provide you an opportunity maybe to follow up on mr. Lynchs line of questioning. Members of this committee represent in the aggregate an incredible number of Service Members. The following bases, white sands, ft. Hood, Patrick Air Force base, and my very favorite, joint base lewis mccord, which i have the privilege to represent. You seemed pretty rushed at the end of that discussion about what it is that the Affairs Office is doing, to provide you with an opportunity to expand if you have anything at all to add to it. And i just have one other question. Thank you. I am appreciative of the chance to talk about this. And i think there were high ranking officials from each of the services that testified recently in the senate about how helpful it has been for them, since theyre really focused on how to do the job of the military, to have the cfpb work with them to make sure that in terms of readiness, the Service Members feel supported and protected on that front so that theyre not consumed with that kind of anxiety. So thats quite important. And we are looking at the entire life cycle for the military from going into the service to begin with to coming back out, transitioning into society. And issues involving families as well. So these are all part of our focus. And some of the curriculum that weve worked on with the department of defense is now being incorporated as a standard matter into some of the training and readiness work that theyre doing. And its just a great thing. And im quite confident that cantwell, who is taking over the position, is a great person to show the leadership in succeeding ms. Petraeus who was a truly great leader, and that we wont miss a beat on that front. Thank you. And my acknowledgement to holly, who did i thought a spectacular job. One of the aspects of the standing up of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that i always found appealing was its effort in effect to level the Playing Field between Financial Institutions and nonbank institutions so that theoretically they could compete on a more even footing in the marketplace on the basis of their innovation and their efficiency and the like. We dont ever seem to talk about that in here. Im just interested in your reflections several years later in that regard. Thats a great point and it gets lost a little bit. One of the things that was done with the cfpb was, were supposed to try to put the banks on a level with the Nonbank Financial Companies that often compete against them in the same markets such as mortgage lending, mortgage servicing, auto lending, you know, a number of others. And we have been working to do that from the beginning. And thats unique to this agency. Nobody was in a position to do this before, because the banking agencies deal with the banks, and the ncos with the credit unions, and other agencies including department of justice have dealt with everybody else. And you want them to be supervised in the same way, subject to the same standards and the same expectations. If not, some of that falls back to the state level where theres some very good work done, but it can be uneven depending on different state laws or different state authorities or state resources. And so we work closely with the states. For us to try to make that Playing Field level is an important thing. And the way i say it is, if you only regulate part of a marketplace and leave part of it unregulated, its going to be a recipe for failure because a lot of things will gravitate to that end that is not under the same microscope. Plus its unfair to these financial companies. They should be competing on the level. And were trying to make that happen more and more. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, with that i yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back. Next we go to the gentleman from new york, who is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director cordray, we have asked before about the wasteful renovations to a Headquarters Building it does not own. One fundamental question remains, who is responsible . In other words, who authorized the renovations . Getting an answer to this simple question has been surprisingly difficult. One of your prior appearances before this committee, representative wagner, now oversight and investigations subcommittee chair wagner, asked you to identify the individual responsible for giving the official goahead to renovate the Headquarters Building. You responded, and i will quote you directly, and why does it matter to you . I cannot recall a more dismissive answer by an agency witness especially one who goes to Great Lengths to stress his agencys accountability and transparency. Yet we did adduce several facts from your testimony. You claim that the decision was made before your tenure as director which began january 24th, 2012. You also said it was someone at treasury that, quote, there are people in treasury who contributed to that decision. We asked treasury and they only pointed us to the bill of contract which was signed on your watch but which tells us nothing of who committed the cfpb to the renovation in the first place. Here is another fact. In 2011, Elizabeth Warren while serving as treasury announced she had selected 1700 g street as location of the bureaus headquarters. We also know from documents provided to us by the office of the comptroller of the currency at the time this location was selected, it was known that renovations would be needed. So now logic would dictate that the one person who, a, selected the location, b, knew of the need for renovations, and c, had the power at treasury to authorize the renovations, is in fact the person who authorized the renovations. Strangely, the Federal Reserve found no documents to substantiate the decision and you have not provided documents either. Did Elizabeth Warren authorize the renovations to the cfpb building at 1700 g street even though she never was given this authority from advice and consent of the senate or appointed to run the cfpb . That was two minutes of narrative. I have several points about it. First answer my question. Okay. So i dont know who made that decision initially, as ive answered before. I feel that i was misquoted or taken out of context by some, not by you but by others, who have made it sound like i thought that inquiring into the expenditures for the building was, why does that matter to you. I know why that matters to you, its a lot of money and it does matter to you. It was the issue of who originally authorized that decision that after the question was asked three or four times, i think i got a little impatient in answering it. But i dont know who made that decision. But ive also said since that i have reaffirmed the decision. So i treat it its basically my decision. So if people have a problem with it, im quite happy to be here and answer the questions. I have a limited amount of time. Just to be clear, Elizabeth Warren did Elizabeth Warren authorize the renovations . As i said, i dont know. I dont have any way of knowing that. I wasnt in the leadership of the bureau at the time. I wasnt privy to those decisions. Its also an increasingly good news story about the building. Its coming in on time and under budget, on budget. And will be im sorry. Thats a different line of questioning. Mr. Director, a cynic would say youre carrying water for senator warren to prevent her political embarrassment and you dont want the American People to know the truth about who was behind the throne before and after you took over the cfpb. Are you answering this question as far as who authorized the renovations under any duress, coercion, or compulsion at all, any type of threat . From whom . I dont even know what youre talking about here. Have you ever discussed the cfpb renovations with senator warren . Have i ever discussed the renovations with senator warren . I dont know if i have or havent. I discussed them with many of you. I dont know if i have. In terms of who made the decision, i dont know. Ive never seen records on that. Whether someone else at treasury is the one who had to authorize that, i honestly dont know. But i ratified the decision and i believe its been a good decision and the project has gone well, and gsa is doing an exemplary job. Reclaiming my time, you do not recall whether or not youve had any conversations with senator warren about cfpb renovations . I may have. Thats different from the i have one quick question. Two weeks ago chairman hen sar ling sent you a letter. Will you continue your future as the director. You owe it to the public to state your intentions. I will ask you, absent action by the administration, will you fulfill your term at cfpb director . I have no insights to provide on that. You are unable to give your assurance right now that you will fulfill your term as director . The whole issue isnt even within my control. We have this court case pending. Were all watching to see what happens with that. So, you know, your speculation about that is as good as mine. The gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, mr. Cordray. Ill have a couple of questions for you, and ill apologize in advance if this is redundant, because i have not been able to participate in the entire hearing, although ive been able to catch a good deal of it. On the closed circuit. Its must see tv, ill tell you. But i want to express to you something that i mentioned earlier, and thats your Public Service, as i said earlier, i have known you for a long time in variety of roles. One of the things that you bring both to this position and especially to this hearing is a seriousness and a calm that would serve this town really well if people adopted your approach. Some of the tone that ive witnessed both when i was here and on television is not becoming of this committee. And thats not on you to respond to, but i will say that im very pleased that you continue to take the position and the work that you do very seriously and answer questions fully to the extent you can and in a manner that is quite becoming a public servant, so thank you for that. Could i just say, im not bothered by any of the tone. I know that people on both sides of the aisle have strong feelings on some of these subjects and they care a lot about it. So theres going to be a certain amount of tone. And i do hope that i can remain calm amidst all of that. Im learning hard, and what they have to say substantively is why im here, and thats important oversight. I just want to stress again to everybody that i take it very seriously, our bureau takes it seriously. There are many things weve changed or done differently as a result of discussions weve had in these Committee Hearings and in your offices. And im sure that will continue in the future. Thank you, i appreciate that. The one editorial comment that ill make is that what frustrates me in watching some of the questions is the attempt to confuse what is policy difference, which is legitimate and actually something that we ought to accept as a part of a normal process of democratic governance, but to confuse policy differences with questions that are raised about integrity while on the other hand, this body, and particularly the majority, seems to ignore legitimate questions of integrity in the executive branch as if they were only differences of policy. And i appreciate the tone that you take. I wonder, and when i opened, i raised a reference to what the bureau did in the case the bridgeport education, which is a forprofit College Chain that deceives students into taking out high cost college loans. You may have answered this question previously. I havent. I wonder if you can describe to us that case or what you can recall from that case and what the outcomes have been as a result of the cfpbs intervention. There have actually been three such cases. So i may sometimes have some of the facts confused among them, but theyre of the same genre. One involved itt, a chain of schools. One involved corinthian, which was also a chain of schools, and bridge point, which i believe was a chain of schools as well. The concerns we have are that loans are being made to Prospective Students and their families where everything thats supposed to be disclosed is not disclosed, and some facts are hidden on the back end, so theres misleading marketing of the loans. The loan may be marketed against a backdrop of Graduation Rates and job placement rates which are being misrepresented to the students and their families so that they end up paying a lot and not getting very much out of the education but the loan is premised on those predicates. Thats a real problem. And we have pursued several of these cases and weve done well in the courts on them. And they have led to significant relief for students and their families and to significant disruption of what were very bad Business Practices at some of those places. Bridge point is not the same as itt and corinthian. And i dont have all the nuanced distinctions in mind here, but thats the general concern that we have. We continue to look for those kind of problems and will continue to address them as they arise. If the rest of the forprofit marketplace is cleaning up as a result, thats a very good thing. I suppose that you can just answer yes or no if you like. Had it not been for cfpbs intervention, the practices that caused your intervention would still be ongoing, people would be basically ripped off by those sorts of loans and it would just continue and be encouraged by inaction by any other agencies . Its hard to know for sure, the road not taken. I think what we can know for sure is what happened because of our actions here. And i think that it was in the public interest. Thank you very much. The gentlemans time has expired. Well recognize next mr. Trott of michigan for five minutes. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, director, for your time today. I want to go back to a line pursued by the chairman of the committee. In defending your press releases regarding resolution of Enforcement Actions, you said a couple of times, i know the facts. It reminded me of Jack Nicholsons line from a few good men, you cant nd the truth. Suffice it to say, your statement suggests to me youre comfortable being judge and jury. August 2016 with regard to the resolution of First National bank of omaha. That isnt how i intended the statement. You somewhat see my point, perhaps. You said, First National bank of omaha violated the trust of its customers by illegally signing them up for credit card addon products. Lets look at the actual agreement, section 2. Respond ended agrees to the urban wants of the Consent Order without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law. So do you think thats an accurate press release . They didnt make an admission of guilt but your press release sure made it sound like they did some bad things, would you agree . Absolutely it did, and they did do some bad things. Again, the distinction is between what i know, and i dont know it because im just dreaming it up, what i know is we conducted an investigation. We uncovered the facts, documentary evidence, talked to employees, talked to people. And this is what it showed. Got you. Reclaiming my time ive heard that answer before. Im going to reclaim my time. Let me suggest a different scenario. So youve settled a number of actions with employees who have been treated unfairly by the cfpb. How would you feel if i issued a press release that said director cordray apologized and admitted responsibility for sex and Racial Discrimination against the employees and the rampant retaliation against its employees, he will not change the behavior because none of the folks that were guilty of this conduct are going to be fired, but this is my press statement. Is that an accurate press statement . If you read that, would you say i did a good job on that . If it were an Inaccurate Press statement, i would not like it because its inaccurate. If it were an accurate press statement, i wouldnt like it because you never admitted guilt to these employees. Its analogous to the First National bank of omaha. No, i dont think it is. Lets continue to talk about another incidence of hypocrisy. I want to continue. Last summer, the sheriff v. Gilley case. Maybe youre familiar about it. It came out of ohio, i believe. It sure did. It involves how an attorney general who is able to appoint a special contractor to collect debt from the state of ohio. The use of attorney general letterhead by the special contractor violated section 1692e of the fair Debt Collection practices act. The Justice Department filed that brief. We worked with them on that. The Justice Department controlled joined in the amicus brief; isnt that correct . As attorney general of ohio, isnt it true you used special contractors to collect debts owed to the state in the same exact fashion. I did, and i know you have a lot of background in this area and know it well, so yes. So your amicus brief would not have been something you were supportive of when you were attorney general of the state of ohio. Is that fair to say . Im not entirely sure about that. You said in response to one of the democratic questions, no one can complain that they cant get their voices heard at the cfpb. I go home every weekend and i hear from realtors, mortgage brokers, community bankers, title agents, Small Business owners, attorneys, theyre terrified by the cfpb. One person a couple of weeks ago, you wont be pleased with this comment, he made an analogy and said the cfpb is like the mafia. They show up at your business and say, its a nice place, i hope nothing happens to it. How do those people get their voices heard . Do you think youve given Prior Guidance to Small Business owners that are honest people trying to do right by the consumer . Certainly mr. Hills question referencing the website, thats convoluted to again an answer to a specific question, thats indicative about how people feel about getting answers out of the cfpb. Is that a fair statement on my part . I dont think so. Im sure it depends very much on who were talking about and different reactions and different places around the country by different people. 23 million americans after all, not all the same experiences im sure. I appreciate your time sir, and i yield back to the chair. Gentleman yields back. Next recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. Its been a long day. Looks like a little more intimate setting today, maybe we can get through a few things. Ive got another line of questioning but i wanted to continue on with something mr. Trott said. I work with whats left of the Community Banks thats left in georgia. As were working on repealing some of the onerous regulation brought in by dodd frank. Provided protection for those on the inside. I have learned one thing, the people out there are more afraid of you and the cfpb than any other element of our federal government. Im getting that from the bankers, banks, every financial institution. It just reminds me of something Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, when the government fears the people, theres liberty. When people fear the government, theres tyranny. And it almost feels like in this Financial Services sector thats where we are. But i just wanted to throw that out there to you. You dont have to respond to that. I want to talk about the reports weve received. I have honest to goodness questions. Ive been reading over the report that was left on our desk and the latest numbers we received from your office this week. And in the most recent report that we received, your numbers show that in 2016, the cfpb handled 291,000 Consumer Complaints. Does that sound about right . 291,000 in 2016 . Yeah, Something Like that. Thank you. Of that, according to your report, 17,000 were resolved with monetary relief for the consumer, which is about 6 of all the complaints have monetary relief for the consumer and 94 resulted in no monetary relief. Thats what i believe was in the report. What i would say there can be monetary relief and nonmonetary relief. If something comes off your Credit Report you can get a morni mortgage you wouldnt have gotten. One thing i didnt see in the report i was looking for is what percentage of those had Civil Penalties . Looking for, is what percentage of those had Civil Penalties . I didnt see that in the report anywhere. We dont impose we cant impose Civil Penalties. In your report, here, you outline several Civil Penalties on actual cases. Yeah, in Enforcement Actions, yes. But in your report you never show what percentage was Civil Penalties or a penalty that was imposed upon the upon the business. Do you have those percentages of those 291,000 cases . Im getting a little lost here. We dont impose Civil Penalties on Consumer Complaints at all. Okay. We dont have the authority to do that. We would not do that. If we did that you know, we would be struck down by a court or something. We can only do it in cases where we file an enforcement action, and its potentially reviewable by a court or and thats judicial or administrative action . Could be either. But its all subject its either in a court or reviewed by a court. What happens to those penalties . The monetary value . Im just wondering. Im asking. I know youre allowed to keep some of that. No. They go its all whatever its not im not trying to get at anything. Im trying to ask honest questions. Im fumbling a little on the answer. Its all specified by law. And congress provided for it. Those penalties go into a penalty fund, and they can either be used to compensate victims in other cases who were unable to receive compensation because, say, a Fraudulent Company went out of business, so they never got their money back. Or they can be used for the statute says two things. The other is Financial Education programs. In our instance, more than 90 of the money has gone to victims from other cases. Okay. And i understand that. Small amount has gone to one Financial Education program, which is helping veterans transitioning back into Service Members. Let me reclaim my time. I am quickly running out of time. I want to follow up on the previous question i had. Thats fine. Are you indicating that only 6 of the cases, you can actually have consumer relief . Or youre unable to do it . We have two Different Things here. That seems like an awfully low number. No, these are two Different Things. We have complaints that people file with us that we try to get those resolved, and get relief where we can. Then theres matters where we bring a case i, which is entirely different on behalf typically of thousands or millions of consumers. And in those cases that are subject to review by a court, we can impose penalties and get money back for people. So in those matters, almost always, were getting money back for people. And if we if they dont get paid, we can go to the Civil Penalty Fund and get their money back that way, if its available. I yield back, mr. Chair. Sorry. The gentlemans time has expired. Next, mr. Mccarthur, gentleman from new jersey, recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, director cordray. Good afternoon. I think everyone in this hearing wants to protect consumers. I dont know anyone who wants to see bad actors run roughshod over the people we represent. All right. Thats a good start. Getting it right, obviously, i think is critical. I just want to explore a little bit about who pays the penalties that are imposed on the companies that that you go after. The enforcement penalty. Who pays those penalties . The companies do. Or the individuals if its individuals involved. Is it fair to say most companies are publicly Held Companies . Theres a mix. But a althoulot of them are, ye and those companies typically, like all public companies, are owned by shareholders, pension funds, 401 k funds, just ordinary americans who invest in the stock market and try to put money away for a rainy day. Is it fair to say that these penalties erode, decrease, have some impact, whether its fair or not, thats not the point. But they have some negative effect on the value of those companies . Look, it depends on a lot of things, i imagine. But i think logically, they have to be paid by the company. And thats the accountability. In the public markets, historically, earnings times about 15 is the value of the company . Its running a little higher now. But if you reduce earnings by 1 million, you have probably affected the value of that company by about 18 million. Typically, thats the case. Not looking for a response. So could i the reason this matters well come back to it and youll have a chance to respond. The reason this matters is, we cant have conflicting guidance from different parts of the federal government. And i want to talk about captive mortgage insurance in particular. In 1996 and 97, the office of the controller of emergency and hud both issued guidance to the mortgage industry about providing mortgage insurance. And both of them, occs interpretive letter, and hud gave later guidance, they laid out where companies could get involved in providing captive mortgage insurance. And dozens of Companies Got involved. You took a different approach. In 2013, you decided that you didnt think that was appropriate. And you went after a number of companies. I wont list them all, because i want to focus on one. But i have a list in front of me of a half Dozen Companies that you imposed fines of 15. 6 million. Times 18, thats about 300 million of market value that evaporated because captive mortgage insurance . For captive mortgage insurance. Reinsurance . Im only familiar with one case, which is the phh case. Well, there are others. Republic mortgage, general worth mortgage, radian guarantee. They were an aspect of the phh case. Fair enough. Got it. But all of these fines have a negative value on these companies. I want to focus on phh for a moment. They are domiciled in my district. Southern new jersey. Okay. 3,500 employees. And you set up a process where basically they were tried inside cfpb, a court of your making. You didnt go to the federal court to do it. And that resulted congress provided for that. That resulted in a penalty of 6. 4 million. You then overruled that penalty. And you imposed a penalty of 109 million on a company that entered the market with guidance from the office of the controller of the currency and the National Bank account. Im forgetting who that came hud. Hud was the other agency. I understand you disagreed with that guidance. But you then went back ten years let me finish. No, no. Went back ten years, applied no statute of limitations, took a judgment of 6. 4 million and turned it into 109 million. Do you know what the market value of that company was on the day you opened that investigation . I do not. It was 7 billion. You know what it is today . I do not. Its 1 billion. Im not suggesting that all of that is due to this action. Frankly that would be quite erroneous. I dont know. But i do know this. That how you go after companies in the name of the consumer is invi vitally important. Youre not just exacting a price from some ethereal entity out there. I understand that. Youre exacting a price that affects 401 k plans, pension funds, ordinary americans. You say youre collecting in their name. Am i going to have a chance to come back on this . Im out of time. If the chairman allows you to respond. If a company violates the law my time how do you hold them accountable . Do you not hold them accountable . What im asking you, sir in your remaining time as director im asking you to be extraordinarily careful about punishing companies who relied on other federal agencies for guidance and you had a different opinion, and you cost real people real money. Could i speak to that . Could i speak to that . Let him answer the question. No more questions. Let him answer the question. I didnt just sort of make something up because i dont like the company or i thought it should be more money. There was a specific legal point in the case that had to be decided one way or the other. And the issue was whether since they violated the law, which is what the Administrative Law judge had held on the factual record and what i agreed with, and others may disagree and its in the courts and the courts will ultimately decide it. Well all abide by their decision. Either the right amount that they had to pay was what they got on contracts after a specific date contracts that were entered after a specific date, or everything they were paid on contracts after a specific date, even though the contracts might have been entered into earlier. It was a tough its a tough legal issue. Its not obvious one way or the other. I made the judgment that it was the other issue. It could either 6 the gentlemans time has expired. Cant be anything in between. And if a court thinks differently, well abide by that. The gentlemans time has expired. It wasnt done cavalierly. Time has expired, gentlemen. Next we will go to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. Bud. Recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My mistake. Mr. Davison is recognized, from ohio, next for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director cordray, you were attorney general in the state of ohio, is that correct . I was, yes. Did you ever have a case that the as attorney general that the state prosecuted where the defendant was found not guilty . I am i dont recall specific cases, but im sure we did. You didnt win all of them. Correct. So in your role as director cordray, in this new role, when you do these settlements, youre doing press releases that say effectively youve won every case. Youve got a perfect record in your case. Then the courts come over and in a case of phh, as my colleague just referred, youre overturned. Because due process has finally been given the opportunity to prevail. Director cordray, does the cfb have the authority to conduct investigations without court order . We can commence an investigation without court order, yes. Does cfb give notice when an investigation is initiated . Could i answer the question . You answered it. You said yes. And i said, so now the question is, does the cfpb give notice to the target when an investigation is initiated . Typically, we commence an investigation by issuing cids to the subject, not the target. We dont use that language. So the target of the investigation is not advised that youre initiating an investigation once you commence. And then no, no, they typically are. Which investigations pursue . They typically are, because they get a civil investigative demand, and thats when we start to engage back and forth. So when you send a civil investigative demand or a cid, one of the criticisms has been that you have this Unlimited Power of discovery, and the person is never the entity is never advised as to whether the target of the investigation or merely answering a question where they could have data related to it . So, again, a couple times now. We dont have Unlimited Power discovery. If they dont agree with what were doing, they can take us to court. Thats happened a number of times. Well, in the case of phh, when they followed the procedure, the next case is, they disagree with the proceedings and then they appeal to the administrative judge. Do you appoint the administrative judges . I do. But they can also and when they disagree with that, they can bring it to the director. And in the case of phh, they that proved to be very highrisk. Did that they can also appeal to the court, and they have done so. And this matter is in the courts. So we understand, this is the path i just want to understand the path here. Youre saying, let me explain. So ive got it down. I say the director you, sign off to investigate the target. The director assesses the case and issues a penalty. The target will either sign a Consent Order or appeal to an administrative judge that you appointed. And if the target loses the appeal, the case is brought back to you, where you will no doubt reject. And as we have seen, perhaps increase the penalty. The target can then appeal to the federal court, but not before its reputation has been tarnished and legal fees in the millions of dollars are in the case sometimes over 100 million. And you presented as if youve already won. Not that theres been a verdict issued, not that full due process, but simply that its alleged you present it as if you have achieved a victory. Is that an accurate description of what goes on here . No, i think not accurate in a number of ways. But if you want me to, ill spell them out. But among other things, congress has provided for different ways to take an enforcement action. A company at any time can take us to court. They can take us to court over the civil corrective demand, as a number have done. They can take us to court and refuse to settle a case. If they think that they have grounds to do so. So reclaiming my time, they do have a path to the courts, but long after the reputation has been severely damaged. Not you serve as judge, jury and executioner. You have already said, when we have determined the facts, were right. Well, clearly, you dont have a perfect track record. So youre not always right. But you presented in the media as if it is. And then when the same exact set of facts has been stated over and over again by my colleagues, you refuse to concede the point that youre guilty as charged. No. When youre on the exact opposite side of the same settlement. Its not correct. We dont present it in the press until a matter is final and its concluded and we have concluded an investigation, we know what the facts are. All right . You present it as if they are found guilty when, in fact, the Consent Orders clearly say that they have not admitted guilt. And i do look forward to you producing one that says something other than that. Theres no guilt in consent or its not a criminal matter. Its a civil matter. And we know what the facts are and we set out the facts, all right . Always your facts are right. Thats your assertion. Your facts are always right. Like every other part of the federal government, and no different for us, what we can do can be challenged in the courts. Reclaiming my time. I need to mention that all of the agencies really need a better appeals process, and i think what we what i have seen, concluding as a new member, we really need to address due process, particularly in your agency. I yield back. Okay. The gentlemans time has expired. Now we go to the gentleman from north carolina, recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, mr. Director. I want to talk a little bit about what appears to be for lack of better terms, a revolving door. So in 2013, politico reported that dozens of cfpb policymakers, rule makers, attorneys have left in recent months, lured by opportunities in the private sector. Many have landed at law firms, compliance shops, banks, where their insider knowledge is coveted. The Washington Examiner and breitbart reported similar issues with staff to take lucrative jobs in the private sector. Other articles just last year noted that more senior staff had departed for major banks, like capital one. A representative of Public Citizen called this pattern of departures alarming. And said that the revolving door is one of the most pernicious, influencepeddling tools they can undermine the integrity of agencies. President trump recently signed an executive order imposing an unprecedented fiveyear lobbying ban on certain officials who leave the executive branch. Do you this is it. Do you support this executive order . The president s always set ethics requirements that go beyond the requirements of the law. And theyre free to do so. I dont have any criticism of that order, if thats what youre asking. Do you support it . I dont have any criticism of that order. Its not my not my jurisdiction to do the president s job. Do you think it might be good in your agency and the cfpb to use something similar to prevent the resolving door . So what we do is, we abide by all of the government ethics rules, and we take them very seriously and we follow them very carefully. Its a free country. I do not control what employees do when they no longer work for me. Beyond the fact that they have to abide by ethics rules. And i assume theyre doing so. And if not, theyre subject to prosecution. If they fail to do that. So i dont know what else to tell you. Sure. Do you think to give the appearance of a highly ethical organization, that you would want to commit to require all cfpb employees to sign an agreement that prohibits them from lobbying and representing clients in matters before the cfpb . Once they have left . They do have to do so for a period of time, and it is specified in the government ethics rules, and we abide by those carefully and follow them closely. Do you know what that period of time is . Im not entirely sure. I have never left the agency myself. But its either a year or 18 months or two years, depending maybe depending on the circumstances. But i would be happy to have my staff fill your staff in on what those requirements are. Sure. It still gives the appearance of a highly complicated, highly regulated organization that has highly marked skills once they leave cfpb. What do you want these people to do . Just retire . I mean, they have to follow the ethics rules. They do follow the ethics rules. If the ethics rules should be changed, i would be happy to have them be changed. And we will abide by them. But there are federal government ethics rules i reclaim my time. It strikes me that the lack of a lobbying ban at, your agency has real cost. There is a restriction. They cannot do certain things for some period of time. I dont know all the details of it. But would be glad to fill you in. Its not as though there is no restriction. They have the same restrictions as everybody else in the federal government. People have set those rules, thinking theyre the right rules. If theyre not the right rules, im sure they can review them and change them. We abide by them. Director, this is a pattern that we have seen prior to the existence of cfbb. This is something we have seen with cross examination of complex regulations and people that created those going into the private sector to interpret those. I hope youre right. I hope its not a problem but appears to be a problem. And i yield back my time. The gentleman yields back. Next, we want to recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. Custoff, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director cordray, for being here this morning and this afternoon. Im a as the chairman would say, recovering lawyer and former United States attorney. I would like to talk to you, if i can, some of these questions, lawyer to lawyer, if you will. Okay. Talk to you about district court, if i can for a moment. In the United States district court, you would agree that in order for the court to consider a claim or a lawsuit, that a party must submit a pleading that contains a short and plain statement, which shows that the complainant is entitled to relief. You would agree to that, wouldnt you . Thats a requirement and its missed by the courts, yes. Thank you. And in order to meet the pleading standard, whats required under the federal rules of civil procedure, this relief must be plausible. It must be credible. You would agree with that as well, that thats an accurate statement . I believe thats i have no reason to contest your statement. Although im a little rusty on some of those procedural issues. Again, courts will decide whether we did that or didnt do that. And we abide by it. Sounds right though, doesnt it . Sounds like a sensible rule. I hope it is the rule, yes. And you would also agree that the supreme court, our supreme court, has made a point to distinguish whats called likely harm from conceivable harm. The latter of which would not allow be allowed to proceed. Is that correct . Likely harm from conceivable harm. Starting to wish i would have had you as a law school professor. But that sounds sensible to me, yes. Fair enough. In other words, the threshold to get into federal court is a fairly low standard. You would agree with that, as well. To bring a case, yes. Of course, it has to survive motion to dismiss or motion for Summary Judgment or anything else. But thats my understanding of how the rules have been developed. And i would agree with what you just said. I do want to talk to you about the matter that the cfpb brought in the Eastern District of north dakota, which i think mr. Tipton touched on briefly. Yes. The udap order against Intercept Corporation. Yes. Im generally familiar with the case, yes. As i understand, Intercept Corporation is a Third Party Payments processor company. Yes. And the allegation was against the against violations by its consumers, is that correct . Well, it was against the payment processor as i think aiding and abetting facilitating violations against consumers with enough knowledge to be held responsible and to kind of maybe get to where youre going. The court found that we did not plead enough facts to make out a case and granted a motion to dismiss in that case. So it goes to show, we do not, as was said, we do not win every case. And were right now still digesting that opinion and trying to figure out what it means for the investigation we were conducting there. And my remaining time, i want to ask you about that. Yes. Because judge Ralph Erickson made some fairly sharp remarks. He said although the complaint and im quoting does not contain detailed factual allegations. It must need not contain detailed, factual allegations. It must contain more than an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation. Thats a quote, unquote. You would agree that was what he said in the opinion, correct . Yeah. I mean, i think our complaint said much more than that. But if thats thats the way the judge viewed it, then the judge certainly decides accordingly. And we have to then absorb that, understand it, and figure out how to deal with it. In fact, he said that the facts in the complaint must be plausible, not merely conceivable. Yes. And he found that they were not plausible, and merely conceivable, i guess. And he further he further sided or stated in his opinion his opinion quote, that the that the complaint, quote, never pleads facts efficient to support the legal conclusion, the consumers were injured, or likely to be injured, close quote. And that, quote, it does not contain sufficient factual allegations to back up concludery statements regarding intercepts allegedly unlawfully acts or submissions. In this case, we got to wrong to that degree. We have had many, many other cases that we have filed where motions dismissed were filed against us and we prevailed on the motions. So, you know, when you were u. S. Attorney in tennessee, i assume you didnt win every case, be even though you tried. Well, the difference is, i wouldnt have brought a case unless i thought that i number one, that somebody broke the law, and two, that i could absolutely prove i understand. But we didnt bring a case where we thought nobody broke the law. We thought they did. The judge disagreed with us, and okay, then. In fact, this court found there was no nexus to the consumer. No harm to the consumer. Thats what the court found. And im sure you brought cases where you thought you were going to get a guilty verdict, and you didnt. Or maybe they were even prosecuted or whatever. Im sure it happens. Its not a not a big mark of honor for us that we had a case dismissed on a motion to dismiss. But usually the vast majority of a case is that survived that threshold. And this time, this judge felt we misjudged it. The gentlemans time has expired. Gentlemans time has expired. We move next to the gentle lady from new york, ms. Tinny, recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director cordray, for being here today, throughout the morning and afternoon. Maybe the evening. Who knows . Youre getting to the end of the line here. I just would like to just refocus a little bit im a Small Business owner, i come from a Community Devastated by a poor economy. In fact, in many areas of my district, were ranked dead last in the national economy. And my concern is over obviously regulations and a lot of the regulations dealing with the auto industry. And i noticed in your comments from last winter that the bureau dropped its equal credit opportunity act, lending enforcement this year. These enforcements were flawed, issued by the cfpb, and also barred consumers from participating in this process and commenting on it. And created a lot of uncertainty in the 905 billion auto lending market. And im concern my question is going to be, why did the bureau pull out of this this type of financing guidance, and why you know, at some point, why was that a decision made by the cfpb . We didnt pull out of that guidance. That guidance merely, as we understood it, restated existing law, and didnt add anything to it. What we did say is, we have we have a fair lending program. We have limited resources. We set our priorities every year. And at this point in time, we were determining priorities for 2017, and we specified they would be red lining mortgage and student Loan Servicing and Small Business lending. And that let me reclaim my time and get back into the auto industry. Thats where i would like to refocus. In fact, what youre doing, in my view, looks like youre taking the finance industry and trying to, you know, circum vent the constitution and go at the auto dealers without having really the authority to do that, coming in on a financing side. I dont see how you can justify that. Look im just surrendmising you pd out because you realized there was an overreach constitutionally. Thats not what were trying to do and thats not what we did here. The statute, Congress Drew it, not me, says we have no jurisdiction over auto dealers. But it says we have do have jurisdiction, and therefore responsibility to deal with auto lenders. So how do you do that . It doesnt work very well. I will agree. Let me reclaim my time and ask you, arent there other agencies in government, on the state level, new york state, which has a very aggressive regulatory scheme to help consumers with the auto dealers . So to me, it looks like wouldnt you agree, its a an overreach for the federal government to use the lending process to go in and go after already regulated field . We havent gone after any auto dealers, other than buy here, pay here. The ftc has that authority, and we will exercise it or not, as they see fit. I dont have that authority. But i do have the authority, and therefore the responsibility and the duty to deal with auto lenders, and the two get in each others way. Thats an unfortunate way the statute was drawn. But in terms hold on a second. Let me reclaim my time and say its an unfortunate way the statute was drawn. Are you saying youre outside the statute and pursue your lending against the auto dealers . No, if we it wasnt withdrawn the way you wanted it drawn so you created your own. No, not at all. We have a responsibility to pursue auto lenders thats going to affect auto dealers. I cant help that. Thats the way the market is. Either we should have had both or we should have had neither. It would have been a better way to do it. So youre conceding then the statute wasnt really the way it should have been. So instead you used the lending no, it means mechanism to get into the dealers. Not at all. It means as we do our job, people are going to be able to criticize us, because it has consequences and ramifications down the line. In terms of specifying our priorities for this year, as you noted, auto is not among them, and we indicated that we have proceeded with different supervising Enforcement Actions against 20 of the largest auto lenders, we will continue to supervise around this, but we need to look at other priorities, as well. So that i think was a sound judgment we had to make. So couldnt you let me reclaim my time and say wouldnt you concede you with drew. So now you are using the regulatory process with lenders to try to reach into the auto industry. Well, im not trying to reach into anything. Im just trying to do the job Congress Gave us. Right. But you just said the job Congress Gave you, but you just said a moment ago that congress didnt have that in the statute the way you needed it. So now no, no, not the way i needed it. Congress did it. I dont think its very logical, frankly, to give somebody responsibility of auto lenders but not auto deal efforts. So youre conceding the statute doesnt really cover auto dealers. We have never taken an action against dealers. We have never done that. But it doesnt mean things we do might not affect dealers. Just like if the Federal Reserve raises Interest Rates its going to affect dealers but theyre not time of the gentle lady has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. Hollingsworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director cordray, for being here this afternoon. I know its been a wearisome, so far. I can assure you, you are reaching the end quickly. Actually, quite invigorating. Something you said earlier really sparks me and i really liked it. You said you are responsible and accountable to the public. I really like that phrase. I try to be, yes. How do you divine what the public wants . I suppose no differently from you. I get a lot of input from the public. We get thats why we set up the Consumer Complaint line, actually, were required to do that by congress. We have set it up to be broadly inclusive. I try to get input from stakeholders. And there are two sides to the issue. Maybe theres more. Like you said, like just like me, i i do go to the public every two years, right . And in an election. And i think generally we believe elections represent the will of the public. Right . And ascertaining their will and desire and activities. So pa part of our government, yes. And as you know, i have a background of that sort myself. Exactly. No doubt. And if you serve and are accountable to the public, and the public duly elected officials, and those duly elected officials decided that it was in their best interest and the publics best interest for you to no longer direct the cfpb, is that something that you would submit to, given that thats how the public expressed their will last november . I think that if people follow the lawful channels and apply the law, then thats the way things should be. So if you serve the public, and the public decided to elect an official that asks for your resignation, is that something that you would comply with, given thats what the public wanted . I think that the law has to be followed. Congress set up this agency, not me. And congress set this up to be an independent consumer watchdog, as they set up many federal agencies. The federal deserve, the fdic and others. I dont doubt the way it was set up. I mean, reading the statute, you can clearly see. I just i guess i would push back against the statement that youre accountable and responsible to the public if youre unwilling to follow the publicly elected official decided. Let me say this. Im accountable to the public. Im also accountable to follow the law. I shouldnt be violating the law, just because they have something in mind. Violation of the law for him to ask for your resignation, is it . Not at all. So the only question remains as to whether you would tinder it willfully or not. I guess thats correct. In honoring the publics will or wishes, it would seem that if an elected official who was duly elected here decided to ask for your resignation, it would seem in the publics interest, given their election, for you to willfully tender that, right . I think the public elected elects the Congress Every two years. Youre now part of it and it had prior congresses. And those congresses passed laws. In the constitution, the law of the land and have to be followed. Okay . And so the authority to remove me would have to follow the law of the land. Right. And that could then be reviewed in the courts. So thats what im understanding, is the right framework. Okay. So i guess turning our attention to having to divine other things, this regulation by enforcement troubles me. And it really troubles me, because i think it was as i continue to hear from others around here that you rarely take a court excuse me, a case to court it is getting late, isnt it a case to court. Not that we rarely do. We have many cases pending right now. What percentage of those taken to court versus those settled outside of court . I dont know exactly. We could get you those numbers. I understand the far greater proportion were settled outside of court. Thats up to the opposing party. They can contest it. Any case they can contest and go through the courts. If they prefer not to, they dont have to. I dont dictate that. Are there any constraints on your budget . Yes. What are the constraints . The constraints that congress set by law. They have a fixed budget cap for us, which is not true of any other independent agency. Whats the size of that . Its approximately 600 million before one of the things my grandfather once told me, the golden rule, right . Who has the gold makes the rules. And i worry about that in your instance. There is a greatin country medication for them to settle. Because of the immense amount of resources you can bring to bear. Not only in the ability to fight cases but in their reputational harm they would suffer from pushing back against t be even on principle. So i guess a better understand of this regulation by enforcement is how other parties are supposed to determine whether the facts that you allege are true, and whether those facts indeed apply to them or not. And whether its left to them to try to divine the tea leaves and figure out whats in their best interest. I dont know that its divining the tea leaves. They should read the orders and think careful about what theyre doing. And judge accordingly. The same way you have never same way they read every law and try to decide whether it applies to them. Even if the facts arent proven to be true. The facts are true in our order as a result of our investigation. That they have agreed to them doesnt make them true. They whether they agreed to them or not time of the gentleman has expired. Investigative facts. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. Emmer. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Cordray, for the past five years, you have been the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And this right here that you delivered to us today, is your ninth semi annual report to congress. On behalf of that agency, correct . Were actually doing two of them today. Covering two of them over the past year. This is your ninth semi annual report to congress. Thats what it says. Okay. Fair enough. Im not making owe it owe says in this. Im not trying to give you any trouble on that. Well, i didnt think so. Im just trying to give you what your words are. You in this report, it says that i think its you have provided on page 18 its 188 pages, this book. All right . And in the book, it says you are providing your agencys, quote, statutory responsibility and commitment to accountability and transparency. So this whole process is about accountability and transparency on behalf of the cfpb, correct . Well, the more transparent we are, the more full the report becomes. Yes. That was a yes. Thank you. Now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets its funds from the Federal Reserve, correct . Correct. And several hundred actually, we get them from congress, initially sets up the framework but specify they come from the Federal Reserve, yes. You get it from the Federal Reserve. You fill out a request, the congress has put in the dodd frank law that credit created this, a limit you can collect based on what the earnings are, and the Federal Reserve can send something north of 600 million. But you generally take about 350 to 400 million for your operating expenses in the cfpb, correct . No. Its changed over time. Because in 2011, when we were created, there was nothing. And the bureau owe. Last couple of years. Sir, im going to try to get through this as quickly as possible. Your general operating budget is about for the last couple of years, somewhere between 350 and 400 million. Thats whats documented. Actually, higher than that. But yes. Maybe its higher than that. In addition, through these consent decrees we have been talking about at length for the last hour, and settlements that the cfpb does with i think representative davidson, identified them as targets. You collect hundreds of millions more. And of the dollars that you collect, you put moneys into an account called the Civil Penalty Fund, correct . Correct, yep. And you also allocate monies into a separate account called the Consumer Education and financial literary programs account. No. No. It goes into the Civil Penalty Fund, and congress specified it could be used for other two purposes. Im sorry. One account and you allocate uncompensated victims, which is where the vast majority have gone. One account, so you allocate between victims and education. Fair enough. Correct . Fair enough, yeah. Now, in this, you have laid it out, again, in this book. Chapter 9, starting on page 131. You give a general summary of the moneys that you have collected and where you have put them. If you look at it, its right in front of you. I think, the book. Its interesting that you put in there that you have allocated money, but theres no audit in this book. Theres no audit that shows us detail of these monies. Were audited every year. By the gao. Do you have an audit you can provide to my office . Absolutely. Fantastic. We have two audits every year. Have you looked at that recently . Have you looked at the audit recently . I look at it every year. You tell me how many checks have been written to actual victims out of the Civil Penalty Fund . I think there have been millions of checks. No, no. What you do when i read your report, you lump all of the money together, and you say you have helped millions of people. But what i would like to know is, specific checks, be rather than seeing like i do in this report after page 131, that you gave a huge chunk of money to some law firm for uncompensated victims. I would like to know exactly who youre writing checks to. We didnt give any chunk of money to a law firm. Who is the firm thats identified on page 132 or 133 . So its victims of those practices. So there were four victims. Of individual consumers. Nobody gets some big chunk of money from us. Page consumers who were victims. Page 13 where is it here . Page 139. The hoffman law group. Formerly known as the residential litigation group. Yes. Thats what im talking about. Yes sir if there is an audit there are i would like to get the audit. I believe we found they violated the law, and this money is going to the victims that they that they they harmed. Again, ill renew. If there is an audit, and you can show us exactly who the money has been given to, id like to see it. You know, im always stunned at people disbelieving that this Consumer Bureau gets money back to real people. Time of the gentlemen has expired. If you want to see the evidence because you dont believe us, we will show you. I would also like to see who educated the time of the gentleman has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. Mooney. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Different questions i have for you, director cordray. You had a former deputy named steven antonakis who left abruptly, unknown circumstances, just months shy of his pension vesting. For all i know, his service is entirely honorable and we appreciate the toll Public Service takes on families sometimes. I understand his desire to return home. But i must ask this question. Was he ever the subject of an inquiry or investigation by the fed Inspector General . So this is kind of outrageous. Steve left the bureau because he remarried and in remarrying, he had three small children. And although he this been commuting from boston to washington for a number of years, he no longer could do so. Those are the circumstances of his departure. And if you want to make something of that, you can. But i think thats a little beyond the pale. So then are you sega firm actively no investigation occurred, or youre unaware of the details of an investigation. Im not aware of what you think youre alleging. Okay. So you cant can you answer affirmly no investigation occurred . Of what . Investigation of what . Im not sure what youre talking about. Of mr. Atoniks when he left. Was there an investigation . He got remarried, he had three small children. He could no longer commute from boston to washington. He was very apologetic about it, because he thought it was important to continue the work are of the bureau. But his personal situation meant that he needed to make a change. We understand the toll it takes on the family. Thats not my question. My question was he the subject of an inquiry . Im not aware of what youre talking about. So youre not aware of any investigation that may have occurred. I dont know what youre talking. I really dont. Im asking you a question. Yeah, im saying, i dont know. What youre talking about. So youre unaware of any investigation by your own deputy that may or may not have occurred. Again, im not aware of what youre talking about. If you ask it again, i still wont be aware of what youre talking about. Okay. Mr. Chairman, i would like to yield time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. Cusstauf. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director cordray, if i could, i would like to go back if i could briefly to that intercept core action in north dakota. I am correct the claim was dismissed, your action was dismissed, because the court found there was no nexus to consumer harm, correct . That was the courts ymt. Im not asking whether you agree with it. I believe thats what the court said, yes. I dont have it in front of me, but if youre saying so, i dont doubt you. And what the court was also saying, if im correct also, was that the cfpb needs to more clearly define the parameters of udab and how you enforce it. Correct. I dont recall whether the court said that, but, you know, the court apparently found that our pleadings where were not specific enough or convincing enough to survive the motion to dismiss, and granted the motion to dismiss. So thats a setback and something we will take to heart and figure out what to do in response. Thank you very much. Director cordray, ive heard from a number of my constituents who live in west tennessee who told me about their struggles to get smalldollar, shortterm loan, whether its for medical expenses, whether its to make a car payment for whatever reason. The rule that the cfpb youve testified a little bit about this during the hearing today. Last year. That effectively reduces consumers ability to get those smalldollar loans. We talked about the number of comments that have been posted. Our million, million three. A lot. A large number. One comment specifically was a letter signed by 18 state attorney generals. Your former colleagues. Importantly for me, my attorney general from tennessee, the honorable herbert slatery. Their letter to you states i quote, the proposed rule is, quote, unnecessary and unlawful. And will do more harm than good and ought to be withdrawn. My question to you is that as far as i can tell, you have not yet responded to that letter, am i correct . Well, these are comment letters, and we dont do a response to all of the comments. We are supposed to take them and figure out what to do in thinking about our rule. By the way, there were other attorneys general from other parts of the country who filed a comment letter on the other side. We have not responded to that one, either. Were supposed to that its not meant to be responded to. Its meant to be telling us their thoughts for the rulemaking purposes. So you have no intention of responding to those 18 attorney generals. If attorneys general communicate with me, i respond to the attorney generals. But in the notice and comment process, the 1,300,000 people who submitted comments, were not going to respond to all of them. Thats not required by law and its not reasonable. So i dont know what to tell you. Theyre allowed to comment into this process like anyone else. But time. I dont have a difference. Time of the gentleman has expired. There are no other members in the queue. The chair wishes can i just the chairman wishes to alert members there is a vote pending on the floor. I do wish to thank the witness for his testimony today. It has been a very long day. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witness to the chair, which will be forwarded to the witness for his response. And i would ask director cordray to respond promptly, as you are able. This hearing could i just have one 30 seconds . Because i wanted to correct the record on a couple times you asked about that i neither admit or deny. Im now informed that we have there have admissions in several cases. Im aware of payday loan Debt Solutions case, American Debt Settlement Solutions case, international and consultants case, First Alliance lending case. There may be others. I thank the director for his answer. This hearing stands adjourned. [ banging gavel ] later today, cia director, mime pompeo, will talk about National Security at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. Live coverage at 3 30 eastern time on cspan. This from the hill earlier today. President trump is facing a tough confirmation battle in the senate over mark green, his nominee for army secretary. Liberal groups are firing up opposition to green, who has said that transgender is a disease, and that armed citizens should fight against efforts to allow transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice. Those remarks could make supporting green tough for centrist democrats and republicans alike. The white house announced late friday that trump intends to nominate green who served as a Tennessee State senator since 2013 to be the armys top civilian leader. Again, that story from the hill. This weekend, on American History tv on cspan3, saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on lectures and history, College Professor Jeffrey Johnson on the 1916 bombing at San Franciscos preparedness day prepared. The worst act of terrorism in San Francisco history. Well, what happened next, just after 2 00 p. M. , about a half hour into the parade, the local press would deem one of the most pathetic results of the explosion and of the parade. And at 10 00, on real america, the 1915 film on the tiring line with the germans. Look at the back, hes kneeling, one of the few times you see a pipe, loading film in his camera. Thats what i think hes doing. And watch the guy there. He just got hit. Sunday at 6 00 p. M. Eastern, on american artifacts, we visit the portrait gallery in philadelphia. Inside what we have is a fine arts exhibit, where we include portraits from the 18th and 19th century to tell the story of what it was like to live in 18th century america, the world that those people knew and the world that the revolution built. And
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.