[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] ENDING DEBT TRAPS IN THE PAYDAY AND SMALL DOLLAR CREDIT INDUSTRY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ APRIL 30, 2019 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 116-20 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37-519 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina, NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member BRAD SHERMAN, California PETER T. KING, New York GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BILL POSEY, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut ANN WAGNER, Missouri BILL FOSTER, Illinois ANDY BARR, Kentucky JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado DENNY HECK, Washington ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas JUAN VARGAS, California FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey TOM EMMER, Minnesota VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas LEE M. ZELDIN, New York AL LAWSON, Florida BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio KATIE PORTER, California TED BUDD, North Carolina CINDY AXNE, Iowa DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee SEAN CASTEN, Illinois TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio BEN McADAMS, Utah JOHN ROSE, Tennessee ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia LANCE GOODEN, Texas STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DENVER RIGGLEMAN, Virginia TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNY HECK, Washington BILL POSEY, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois ANDY BARR, Kentucky AL LAWSON, Florida SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado, Vice RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan Ranking Member KATIE PORTER, California ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia BEN McADAMS, Utah TED BUDD, North Carolina ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia DENVER RIGGLEMAN, Virginia C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: April 30, 2019............................................... 1 Appendix: April 30, 2019............................................... 43 WITNESSES Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Haynes, Reverend Dr. Frederick Douglass III, Senior Pastor, Friendship-West Baptist Church................................. 6 McDonald, Todd O., Senior Vice President and Board Director, Liberty Bank and Trust Company, on behalf of the National Bankers Association............................................ 10 Peterson, Christopher L., John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law; and Director, Financial Services, and Senior Fellow, Consumer Federation of America........................................................ 12 Reeder, Garry L. II, Vice President, Center for Financial Services Innovation............................................ 14 Sherrill, Robert, CEO, Imperial Cleaning Systems................. 15 Standaert, Diane M., Executive Vice President and Director of State Policy, Center for Responsible Lending................... 9 Whittaker, Ken, Southeast Michigan Organizing Director, Michigan United; and former payday loan consumer........................ 8 Zuluaga, Diego, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute................................... 17 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Haynes, Reverend Dr. Frederick Douglass III.................. 44 McDonald, Todd O............................................. 47 Peterson, Christopher L...................................... 51 Reeder, Garry L. II,......................................... 67 Sherrill, Robert,............................................ 78 Standaert, Diane M........................................... 80 Whittaker, Ken............................................... 94 Zuluaga, Diego............................................... 95 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Waters, Hon. Maxine: Written testimony of the Honorable Richard J. Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois......................... 98 Written statement of the Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition.. 102 Written statement The Pew Charitable Trusts.................. 107 ENDING DEBT TRAPS IN THE PAYDAY AND SMALL DOLLAR CREDIT INDUSTRY ---------- Tuesday, April 30, 2019 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:14 p.m., in Room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gregory W. Meeks [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Meeks, Scott, Velazquez, Clay, Foster, Tlaib, Pressley, Wexton; Luetkemeyer, Barr, Tipton, Williams, Loudermilk, Budd, Kustoff, and Riggleman. Ex officio present: Representatives Waters and McHenry. Also present: Representatives Green of Texas and Hill of Arkansas. Chairman Meeks. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Also, without objection, members of the full Financial Services Committee who are not members of this subcommittee are authorized to participate in today's hearing. Today's hearing is entitled, ``Ending Debt Traps in the Payday and Small Dollar Credit Industry.'' And I just want to apologize to my colleagues and to our panelists for the late arrival. We had a codel that had some problems, so we literally just landed and came here. I thank you for your patience. I now recognize myself for 4 minutes to give an opening statement. To Ranking Member Luetkemeyer and the members of the subcommittee, welcome to this hearing on, ``Ending Debt Traps in the Payday and Small Dollar Credit Industry.'' This hearing gets at the heart of the intersection between Main Street and Wall Street. As was the case with our last hearing on CRA modernization, this hearing offers us an opportunity to consider the challenges faced by everyday American families, far too many of which struggle to make ends meet. According to a recent Federal Reserve report on the economic well-being of U.S. households, 10 percent of adults experience hardship because of monthly changes in income. Four in ten adults cannot cover an unexpected expense of $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Over one-fifth of adults are not able to pay all of their current month's bills in full, and over one-fourth of adults skip necessary medical care due to financial hardship. These numbers paint a stark picture of the financial health and resilience of American households. Indeed, despite a growing economy, the data shows that middle-class and lower- middle-class American families are falling behind. The financial vulnerability of such a large segment of American households should not make them easy targets for predatory lenders. Congress and relevant agencies have an obligation to ensure access to financial products that do not wreck the lives and finances of our constituents. American workers deserve access to financial services products that can serve as a foundation to building a better future for themselves and their families. It is in this context that today's hearing considers payday loans, car title loans, and other small-dollar loan products. Over a period of 5 years, engaging broadly with communities and stakeholders and reviewing over one million comment letters, the CFPB developed a payday rule aimed at curbing the most abusive practices of the payday industry, including requiring that payday lenders assess a borrower's ability to repay. There is ample research that shows that the ability to repay, combined with amortizing loans, are key to protecting consumers from falling into debt traps. As such, it was deeply disappointing to see first, Mr. Mulvaney, and then Ms. Kraninger, the current CFPB Director, move to rescind these key provisions from the payday rule and delay the rule itself. Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act in the wake of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, specifically so that financial services consumers would know they have one agency tasked with the sole mission of protecting consumer interests. It is hard to see how the actions of the Bureau, under Mr. Trump's leadership team, is fulfilling its core mission of putting consumers first. The testimony of the panel of experts today paints a portrait of the health and vulnerability of average American households and shines an important light on some of the worst predatory practices in payday, car title, and small-dollar lending, and puts forth policy recommendations for our consideration. Today's witnesses will also speak to the important role of community banks and fintech. These are important issues that need not be a partisan issue. All of us, as Members of Congress, have constituents struggling to earn a living, finding themselves in a growing banking desert and caught in payday debt traps. Today's hearing is an opportunity to consider how best to serve these constituents. I very much look forward to discussing these issues further today with the panel of witnesses and members of the subcommittee. And with that, I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Luetkemeyer, for his opening statement. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the years, I have heard countless stories from my constituents who rely on small-dollar, short-term loans in times of financial hardship. When there is an unexpected auto repair, a hospital bill, or a broken air conditioner, many families simply have nowhere else to turn. Each year, more than 12 million Americans utilize small-dollar loans when they need short-term financial assistance. Unfortunately, the reputation of the entire small-dollar lending industry has been sullied by a few bad actors exercising deceptive lending practices. This small group has caused an industry that provides access to credit for millions of Americans to be villainized. In fact, under the previous Administration, DOJ and FDIC officials specifically singled out payday lenders under Operation Choke Point and attempted to cut off these legally operating businesses from the financial services industry. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will call for the payday industry to be severely regulated on the Federal level and are proposing legislation that will place additional requirements on short-term loans. I would caution against this approach. History has shown that regulations have consequences. We have seen over the years that traditional financial firms have largely gotten out of the business of small-dollar, short-term loans due to the cost of regulations. This is clearly a demand for short-term lending products, particularly to low- and moderate-income individuals. According to the Federal Reserve, 4 in 10 adults in 2017 would be forced to borrow, sell possessions, or not be able to pay if faced with a $400 emergency expense. Before this committee considers any legislation related to the requirements or regulations of short-term lending, we must fully examine how it will impact the industry and the consumers who depend on these products. I am particularly concerned about a draft proposal before the committee today which would cap the APR at 36 percent for all consumer credit transactions. First, an APR is not an effective tool to measure a loan that typically lasts 2 to 4 weeks. Second, the interest attached to these loans should be viewed as a service fee. If a plumber comes to my house and fixes one pipe in 30 minutes and then charges me $50, did I pay him $100 an hour or did I pay him a $50 service fee? There is no question consumers should be protected by effective regulations that safeguard their financial wellbeing. However, regulations that curb choice and stifle access to credit have no place in our economy. According to CFPB's February 2019 rulemaking on small-dollar lending, the majority's hearing memo, 17 States and the District of Columbia have either banned payday loans or have regulations that do not allow payday lenders to sustain their business models. Restricting the availability of short-term credit will not solve the financial problems facing so many American families but it will push them toward riskier and unregulated products. If the Federal Government takes a similar approach to these 17 States, and small-dollar, short-term products are regulated out of existence, where will the 12 million Americans who utilize small-dollar loans go to to get the financial services they need? This is a question that this subcommittee and the witnesses in front of us must focus on today. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for holding this hearing. And I thank you, the panel, for appearing before us. I look forward to a robust discussion. And I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for one minute. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to welcome you back home. I understand it was quite a challenging trip. It's good to have you back safe and sound. This is an important hearing as we try to grapple with ways in which we can make sure everybody, regardless of where they fit in the economic stream, can enjoy and participate meaningfully in our grand economic system. Unfortunately, that is not so true for those who fall at a certain level within the lower income and middle income of having access. And this is why I have, along with my Republican colleagues, introduced a couple of very important bills: the Improving Access to Traditional Banking Act of 2019; and the FinTech Act, along with my colleague, Mr. Barry Loudermilk. I look forward to getting into this very meaningful hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Meeks. I now recognize the ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry. Mr. McHenry. Welcome back, Mr. Meeks. Thank you for being here and thanks for holding this hearing. And thank you, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, for your leadership as well. Research conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust found that 62 percent of payday loan customers will be forced to delay bill payments if payday loans became unavailable. There are real lives at stake, and access to credit is limited. So for consumers with less than pristine credit or for those who are credit invisible or underbanked, financial choices are severely impaired and limited. Misguided regulation--in fact, misguided law often limits access to credit in a way that is not in the best interest of borrowers. We will hear firsthand today from Robert Sherrill, who is the only person on the witness stand who has actually relied on a payday loan. He has a story to tell and it's a very powerful story. Moreover, new technologies have emerged to foster greater financial inclusion by helping customers through microloan financing, advance payment alternatives, and data-driven underwriting. Those are useful and good models. The truth is, we need to help people save. And that is in our national interest. But we also need folks who do fall behind to be able to get short-term lending so they can get back into a stable situation. So with that, Chairman Meeks, thank you for your leadership. And I yield back. Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I would now like to welcome our witnesses. And I think that we have a great panel. I am looking forward to hearing from them. First, we have the Reverend Dr. Frederick Douglass Haynes III, who is a pastor, a passionate leader, a social activist, an orator, and an educator engaged in preaching the gospel, fighting against racial injustice, and who is committed to economic justice, empowerment in underserved communities, and who has been touching and transforming the lives of the disenfranchised for over 35 years. Dr. Haynes serves as Senior Pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Kenneth Whittaker is a community and political activist who has spent the last 14 years fighting for racial justice for the ``99 percent of us,'' to use his words. He currently serves as the Southeast Michigan organizing director at Michigan United and Michigan Peoples Campaign. Mr. Whittaker has traveled the country training activists, inspiring new leaders, and developing the skills of those building the progressive movement. Mr. Whittaker is a lifelong Detroiter, where he still proudly resides with his wife, his partner in raising six young adults, including five college students and one Navy seaman. Ms. Diane Standaert is executive vice president and director of state policy at the Center for Responsible Lending. Ms. Standaert directs CRL's State-level policy agenda to advance responsible lending policy and practices across all of CRL's issues. She also oversees CRL's work on issues of small- dollar lending. She is a graduate of the Florida State University and holds a JD degree from the University of North Carolina School of Law. Mr. Todd O. McDonald serves as senior vice president and board director at Liberty Bank and Trust of New Orleans. He began his career at Liberty Bank and Trust 13 years ago. He is intimately involved in the company's high-level corporate strategy decisions that ultimately affect the long-term growth and sustainability of the bank. In addition to his work at Liberty Bank and Trust, Mr. McDonald is active in real estate, technology, and fast food. He received his BS in Business Management from Morehouse College and a Masters in Business Administration from Northwestern Kellogg School of Management. Next, we have Mr. Chris Peterson, the John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Professor Peterson was on leave from 2012 to 2016 serving as Special Advisor in the Office of the Director at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Legal Policy in Personnel and Readiness in the United States Department of Defense, and as Senior Counsel for the Enforcement Policy and Strategy in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Office's of Enforcement. Mr. Peterson is a Senior Fellow of the American Bar Association's Consumer Financial Services Committee. Mr. Gary Reeder II is vice president for policy and innovation at the Center for Financial Services Innovation. Mr. Reeder sets the strategic direction and is responsible for the execution of CFSI's innovation portfolio and policy activity. He leads the Financial Solutions Lab, a community of startups, financial services companies, and nonprofit organizations building solutions to improve financial health in America. Mr. Reeder's broad experience in regulatory matters stems from his work at the CFPB, the FDIC, the U.S. Treasury, and in the asset management industry. He holds a BA in history from Yale College, and an MBA from Columbia Business School. Mr. Robert Sherrill is the chief executive officer of Imperial Cleaning Systems. A Nashville native, Mr. Sherrill has overcome many challenges. As a young man, Mr. Sherrill served time in a Federal penitentiary where he vowed to make a change for his family and himself. Upon his release, he opened Imperial Cleaning Services, a commercial cleaning, restoration, and janitorial company based in Nashville, Tennessee, where he serves as President and CEO. He has been recognized as one of Nashville's ``40 under 40,'' and as the Black Chamber of Commerce's Rising Star. He is also the president of Impact Youth Outreach, a nonprofit organization working to combat youth crime. And lastly, we have Mr. Diego Zuluaga, a policy analyst at the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives in the Cato Institute, where he covers financial technology and consumer credit. Prior to joining Cato, he was the head of financial services and tech policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. Originally from Bilbao in Northern Spain, he holds a BA in economics and history from McGill University, and an MSc in financial economics from the University of Oxford. Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I want to remind you that your oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes. And without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record I now recognize for 5 minutes, the Reverend Dr. Haynes. STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND DR. FREDERICK DOUGLASS HAYNES III, SENIOR PASTOR, FRIENDSHIP-WEST BAPTIST CHURCH Mr. Haynes. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, and all of the distinguished members of this subcommittee. It would be iniquitous and immoral for someone who has been knocked down to receive handcuffs when they have out of desperation asked for a hand up. The payday loan industry is guilty of such unjust and unethical practices. They prey upon the desperation of the poor who are already disadvantaged. Payday predators hijack the hopes of the vulnerable and revictimize them by baiting them into a debt trap. These hunters of the helpless are guilty of dealing bad hands with bad plans, to use the language of Kendrick Lamar. As Pastor of Friendship West in Dallas, I have heard too many share their experience of being exploited and ensnared in the payday debt trap. One of my members, a 74-year-old senior citizen who is feisty and fiercely independent, discovered she didn't have the money to pay a bill. She saw a commercial for a payday loan and felt it was an answer to prayer. Now she feels like the devil has answered her prayer. She is on a fixed income, and when the repayment was due, she didn't have enough and had to take out another loan to pay the first one. She ended up with a dozen loans. When she approached me for help one Sunday after church, this once proud senior saint with good credit was ashamed and tearful. She showed me the paperwork. I was appalled. The interest rate was 620 percent. She was dealt a bad hand with a bad plan. She was hurting for help. She took the bait of the payday loan and became trapped in debt that made her bad situation so much worse. I could call the roll, but I will proceed. Payday predators are a part of a hostile takeover of the unbanked and underserved. This exploitive industry targets and saturates communities already suffering from economic apartheid. I am not exaggerating when I say that when the vulnerable are drowning in desperation, the payday industry throws a life preserver weighted with iron of usurious interest rates. The average annual interest rate for payday loans in the United States, 391 percent APR, is absurd and outrageous. Payday and car title loans use a predatory business model in order to create a long-term cycle of debt at triple-digit interest rates. These short-term loans were never designed to be paid back in a short period of time. A fact check of the average number of payday loans per borrower in each State tells this sinful story. It is oxymoronic that in the land of the free, debt traps are set for the vulnerable. Of course, the payday predators will put the spotlight on the rare exceptions who have been able to dodge the debt trap. But that should not blind us to the many who are in the shadows of a financial nightmare that never seems to end as their bank accounts are overwhelmed with overdraft fees or closed down. Some fall into bankruptcy. Many lose their cars to repossession. It is time for a new plan for those who have been dealt a bad hand. The 2017 CFPB rule is a plan that simply requires that before payday and car title lenders make certain loans, they assess whether potential customers can afford to pay them back with the finance charges, given the customer's income and other expenses. What a novel concept. This is a commonsense foundation of responsible lending. The rule is a good plan that protects many of our nation's families from the worst impacts of triple-digit interest debt traps set by payday and car title lenders. A coalition of citizens committed to protecting consumers have mobilized to push for strong reforms of predatory practices. Included in this coalition of conscience of those personal impacted by debt trap practices, advocates for low- income families, veterans, the elderly, responsible businesses, and faith-based groups. We are appalled that the CFPB would propose ripping out the heart of the rule in favor of allowing payday lenders to continue to exploit those who are struggling and vulnerable. We are calling for strong protections so those who experience an emergency don't end up drowning in debt they cannot repay. We are called to protect families from financial predators, and a 36 percent rate cap would leave no one behind and ensure that they cannot be preyed upon when life happens. Friendship West has a credit union. We offer small-dollar loans for those who are vulnerable at an interest rate of 28 percent. A business model that is just works for all. Please, let's protect the vulnerable, lest we hear Jesus say, ``I was hungry and you gave me a payday loan. I was given a bad hand, and you gave me a bad plan.'' [The prepared statement of Reverend Haynes can be found on page 44 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you. And now I recognize Mr. Whittaker, whom I understand also had received payday loans in the past. Mr. Whittaker, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KEN WHITTAKER, SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN ORGANIZING DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN UNITED; AND FORMER PAYDAY LOAN CONSUMER Mr. Whittaker. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, Chairman Meeks, thank you. Ranking Member Tipton and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today. My name is Ken Whittaker, and I am from Detroit, Michigan. As Chairman Meeks said, I am a hardworking husband and a father of six brilliant young adults, five of whom are college students, and one of whom is waiting at home for me to return so that he can go to MEPS to leave for the Navy of this great country. Years ago I was working in IT at the University of Michigan when I withdrew money from my paycheck and proceeded to lose that cash out of my pocket as I pulled out a $20 bill to buy a hotdog for my young son. Unfortunately, I took out a payday loan of $700 to cover that loss. That turned out to be a very big mistake that truly altered the course of my life. I found out that I could not pay off that first loan without reborrowing to make ends meet until the next paycheck. This began a cycle of debt which lasted over a year. Soon, I was paying $600 a month in fees and interest. I eventually closed my bank account to limit the payday lender's ability to draw money directly from my account, leaving my family without the cash for rent, for groceries, and for other essential bills. This led to debt collection calls and a judgment. My tax return was garnished, making things that much worse for my family. All told, that original $700 loan cost me over $7,000. I spoke out about my experience. At the time, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was developing a rule that would require lenders to make loans based on customers' ability to repay and that they could afford. To me, that requirement only makes sense, and that is how all lending should be. Having been through this experience myself, I know how devastating payday lending can be. It is quite disturbing to me that the current leadership of the CFPB is threatening to repeal the rule that we lobbied so hard for to protect us. I strongly support keeping the 2017 CFPB rule. I also support the proposal to cap annual interest rates at 36 percent to stop predatory lenders from trapping customers into high- cost loans that can ruin their financial lives. Since the day I bought that hotdog for my son, we have worked to make things better for working families. Coming full circle, my son and his siblings are here today with me in D.C., as we have been fighting for fairness and justice. Please support strong reform of predatory payday and car title lending for people like me. We work hard to support our families and make finances stable, and this kind of lending only makes it harder. Thank you for allowing me to share my story today, and I urge you to protect working families and put people over profits. [The prepared statement of Mr. Whittaker can be found on page 94 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you. Ms. Standaert, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DIANE M. STANDAERT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICY, CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING Ms. Standaert. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, and Ranking Member McHenry. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Diane Standaert. I am the director of State policy and executive vice president of the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). The Center for Responsible Lending is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy and research organization dedicated to building family wealth through the elimination of abusive lending practices. Our organization's nearly 20 years of research on payday and car title loans show consistently two things: one, these loans are a debt trap by design; and two, the harms of these debt trap products further economic inequality and further the racial wealth gap. Payday and car title loans charge 300 percent annual percentage rates and strip away around $8 billion in loan fees from people typically earning about $25,000 a year. The bulk of these fees are generated by the debt trap. Seventy-five percent of all payday loan fees are due to borrowers stuck in more than 10 loans a year. The typical car title loan is refinanced 8 times. Low-income borrowers then suffer a cascade of financial consequences, delinquency on other bills, having their bank account closed, and even bankruptcy. For car title lenders, an astonishing one in five borrowers have their cars seized. Borrowers have described this debt trap in their own words as soul crushing, a hole you can't get out of, and a living hell. As borrowers suffer these harms, the role of private equity has increased to fuel the engines of this industry. What people see at the street level as a small lender storefront is actually the tentacles of private equity extracting billions of dollars a year from people already struggling to make ends meet. And research has shown time and time again that payday and car title loan storefronts disproportionately locate in black and Latino communities, even when they have the same or higher income as white neighborhoods. Thankfully, policy trends at the State and Federal level for more than a decade have been to rein in the harms of these unsafe loans, ranging from the 2006 passage of the 36 percent rate cap for the Military Lending Act to protect our Active Duty military families, to voter-affirmed rate caps of 36 percent in States like South Dakota, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, and others. Today, 16 States plus the District of Columbia enforce caps of 36 percent or less covering nearly 100 million people with this most effective protection against the harms of these loans. Since 2005, no State has legalized payday lending. Today, I would like to emphasize four important points. Payday and car title lenders have situated themselves intentionally to perpetuate our country's two-tiered financial services system. The harms and consequences of these loans exacerbate the wealth gap and disproportionately burden communities of color. Older Americans and people on fixed incomes are also particularly vulnerable. To reduce these harms, the predatory nature must be addressed head on. Competition and alternatives will not lower the cost of 300 percent interest rate loans. Finally, the States, Congress, and Federal regulators all have a role to play in ensuring that people are not ensnared in these debt traps. We are thankful for Senator Durbin's leadership in proposing a 36 percent rate cap that does not override strong State laws. Congress and Federal regulators must reject any proposal that in the name of innovation or otherwise preempts stronger State law. Today, on behalf of more than 700 organizations participating in the Stop the Debt Trap campaign, we call on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to implement, not delay, not repeal, its 2017 payday rule, which simply requires lenders to verify that borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. This commonsense notion of ensuring a loan is affordable is the bedrock of responsible lending, and it is strongly supported by voters all across this country, with 75 percent support among Republicans and Democrats alike. The fact that payday and car title lenders resist such a notion confirms everything we know about the lending business model. In summary, policymakers have a choice, siding with the vast majority of voters and borrowers who oppose the payday loan debt trap or siding with the predatory lenders who charge 300 percent annual interest rates. Thank you for your time. [The prepared statement of Ms. Standaert can be found on page 80 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. McDonald for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF TODD O. MCDONALD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND BOARD DIRECTOR, LIBERTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BANKERS ASSOCIATION Mr. McDonald. Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member McHenry, and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to testify on the small-dollar lending industry. My name is Todd McDonald. I am a senior vice president and board director at Liberty Bank and Trust Company. I am also a board member of the National Bankers Association (NBA), the leading trade association for the country's minority depository institutions (MDIs). The NBA's mission is to serve as an advocate for the nation's MDIs on all legislative and regulatory matters affecting our member institutions as well as the communities they serve. Small-dollar lending has become a fast-growing source of consumer credit in the United States and a key to financial inclusion, particularly for those underserved communities. Unfortunately, existing Federal law does not limit the interest rate nonbank lenders can charge on loans of $2,500 to $10,000. This lack of interest rate cap has resulted in a recent explosion of loans with annual interest rates in the range of 100 percent to 225 percent and above. While 35 States have imposed caps on nonbank lenders, there is still a significant gap in protections for customers. As a CDFI that serves a largely low- and moderate-income consumer base that often utilizes these high-cost products, Liberty often works to help our customers get out of these predatory loans and into more manageable instruments. This dynamic is one of many reasons why we have created our own small-dollar loan product called the Freedom Fast Loan. The Freedom Fast Loan was created in 2008 because we saw a demand for a responsible small-dollar product in the markets that we serve. Our customers use Freedom Fast Loans for everything from funeral expenses to consolidation loans for other high-interest debt like credit cards and payday loans. The average loan is just over $6,000, and the average interest rate is right at 12.6 percent. Our APR never exceeds 34.3 percent, and we serve customers with credit ranging from the low 500s over to 700 Beacon scores. We also report payments to the credit bureaus so our customers can build their credit while using our product. In order to scale our Freedom Fast product, and for community banks to provide similar options, we believe that there are steps Federal banking regulators and Congress must take in order to facilitate the kind of robust marketplace where community banks can compete with predatory small-dollar lenders. The Credit Union National Administration's PALS program and the findings from the FDIC's Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program should provide the basis for regulators to consider a small- dollar regulatory regime tailored to community banks like our member institutions. Even our Freedom Fast Loans attracted scrutiny in the past from regulators, despite it meeting an obvious credit need in the markets we serve. To that end, we believe that a sandbox approach from banking regulators that allows community banks to develop responsible small-dollar alternatives tailored to the credit needs of our communities would be a welcome next step in carving out a role for mission-oriented lenders to provide responsible alternatives. In addition to a sandbox for community banks, we would also urge Congress to fully fund the Small Dollar Loan Program authorizing grants for loan loss reserves for CDFIs seeking to provide responsible small-dollar alternatives. Technical assistance grants for CDFIs seeking to provide payday alternatives for expenses like underwriting software and other administrative costs would be definitely encouraged. According to the OCC, U.S. consumers borrow nearly $90 billion every year in short-term debt, typically ranging from $300 to $5,000. Due to the cost in the increasing regulations, many banks have withdrawn from this market, resulting in consumers turning to alternative lenders as a last resort. Within the right environment, banks can provide affordable short-term loan options that can help consumers with their financial needs while establishing a path to more mainstream financial products. However, it is very important that policymakers create a regulatory atmosphere where these loans are profitable for banks that take on this customer niche and do not lead to additional regulatory burdens. Policymakers should also create an environment where community banks can partner with responsible nonbank lenders to fill the obvious need in this lending space. Thank you for your time. [The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald can be found on page 47 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you. Mr. Peterson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER L. PETERSON, JOHN J. FLYNN ENDOWED PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW; AND DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL SERVICES, AND SENIOR FELLOW, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. Also, thank you, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer and Ranking Member McHenry. It is an honor to be here today. Thank you very much for holding this hearing and also for attending the hearing. I would like to begin with two quick statistics to get started. First, the average interest rate of the New York City's so-called La Cosa Nostra organized crime families and their organized loan sharking syndicates, at the height of their power in 1960s, was 250 percent, a very high interest rate. But by way of comparison, the average interest rate nationwide in storefront payday loan stores is probably about 420 percent APR, nearly twice as expensive as what the so- called mob charged. And all throughout the vast majority of American history, for over 200 years, virtually every State in the Union did not tolerate interest rates at those prices. We had usury limits in all 13 original American colonies. All of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, every delegate to the Constitutional Convention, all of those guys went straight back to their States where they had interest rate limits of between 6 to 7 or 8 percent or thereabouts. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century where we started to raise those interest rate limits to about between 18 to 42 percent, and 36 percent was the tried and true interest rate limit all throughout the Great Depression. The Greatest Generation--the so-called Greatest Generation that went and fought the second world war, they all came back to States that had interest rate caps of about 36 percent, even on the smallest, most expensive loans. Without those interest rate caps, the problem is that people fall into debt traps. If there is one thing I could get you to look at, it is the screenshot that I have included in my written testimony. This screenshot is from an auto title lender that made a $1,971 loan to a woman. I have changed her name for her privacy. She was a client. She borrowed this money because she was behind on her bills. It had an interest rate of 300 percent. She worked as a receptionist, made about $11 an hour as a receptionist. Month after month, she kept paying back as much money as she could. She made $400, $500, $480 payments. Overall, she paid $4,635 on this original $1,900 loan. But because of the simple power of a 300 percent interest rate, the lender only applied $1.16 to the principal balance of her loan. And then afterwards, the lender still continued to claim that she owed another $2,422.05, even though she had paid back over $4,000. This is money that she is making $11 an hour as a receptionist. She was still deeper in debt than when she originally began that loan. That is not freedom. That is a trap. It is a debt trap. And a second point I would like to make is that across this nation, a supermajority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, agree that we need to restore our traditional, old- fashioned interest rate caps, our usury laws, that had protected so many people from all across this country throughout the vast majority of our history. That is about 3 in 4--about 73 percent of Americans in virtually every public opinion poll that has ever been conducted. And every time there has ever been a ballot initiative on a ballot where the public actually got to vote, they have always voted in favor of usury limits. That means that in every one of your districts, a supermajority of your constituents support imposing a traditional interest rate cap, which leaves me with the question of, are you going to go along with them, with what the public wants, or are you going to vote as legislation comes up in this Congress to protect the payday lenders that charge triple-digit interest rate caps and have prices that are higher than the New York City loan sharks charged? And then I will end on one thing. I would urge you to consider, as a template for moving forward--think about looking at the Military Lending Act. You know, the people who defend freedom in this country, the United States military, respected on both sides of the aisle, their people were falling into trouble because of these predatory debt traps, and they put a stop to it. They got over, they lobbied, and they got Congress to pass an interest rate limitation on loans to servicemembers. That limitation is now in effect. And I am proud to say that I, along with a number of other people, helped work on drafting those regulations. And it has done a great job for our servicemembers. They still have plenty of access to credit. It is time for Congress to learn a little bit about what freedom and free markets means from the people who defend our freedom. Freedom is not the same thing as a debt trap. And in Congress, we need to remember that and restore traditional, old-fashioned commonsense usury laws to protect our citizens all across this country. Thank you for your time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson can be found on page 51 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Reeder, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF GARRY L. REEDER II, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES INNOVATION Mr. Reeder. Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, and subcommittee members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share some thoughts and insights on the small-dollar credit industry and its impact on Americans' financial health. Small-dollar credit has been a core part of my work for over a decade and is deeply entwined with my experience growing up in rural North Carolina. Some of my earliest memories involve accompanying my grandmother in her brown 1973 Ford Maverick every payday to pay her lenders. She, like so many other people in my community, had limited access to mainstream financial services. As the son of a Baptist Minister, I also saw up close the real-world needs of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. Nearly every week, someone came up after service seeking help paying rent, buying diapers or getting gas. Since my family, like many others, lived paycheck to paycheck, our ability to help one another was limited by our own lack of resources. I ask that we keep these people and the millions of Americans like them in mind as we bring our different perspectives to the table in an effort to improve the financial health of all Americans. As we all know, financial services has the ability to protect us from economic ruin and enable us to build better lives for ourselves, our families, and our communities. However, far too often financial services, particularly credit and our antiquated payment system, make people's lives more difficult. I am the vice president of policy and innovation at the Center for Financial Services Innovation, a leading authority on consumer financial health. We are a trusted resource for business leaders, policymakers, and innovators, united in a mission to improve the financial health of their customers, employees, and communities. Our largest initiatives include the Financial Solutions Lab and U.S. Financial Health Pulse. The Financial Solutions Lab is a seed-stage fintech accelerator focused on advancing the financial health of low- and moderate-income and historically disadvantaged consumers. The U.S. Financial Health Pulse is an annual snapshot of how Americans manage their financial lives with actionable insights to improve financial health. Our research suggests that a variety of different needs and use cases underlie the demand for small-dollar credit and that many of them are symptomatic of one or more dimensions of poor financial health. Payday lenders, auto title lenders, pawn shops, and other subprime lenders have dominated the provision of small-dollar credit for much of the last 30 years. Many of the products they have offered are rarely underwritten, rely on cycles of continuous use, and harsh collection practices that both exploit and perpetuate borrowers' financial distress. Auto title loans are particularly concerning because of the potential loss of a car in the event of default. Fortunately, the consumer finance industry is in the midst of a dramatic change as a result of the ever-increasing speed of technological innovation and the broadening and deepening of data availability. Fintech startups and innovative incumbents are developing and testing products that have the potential to meet the financial needs of underserved households. However, innovation must be tempered with appropriate standards and oversight. In an attempt to address those standards, we have developed our own compass principles for small-dollar credit. We believe high-quality products have seven core characteristics: first, the loan is underwritten; second, the loan amortizes; third, lenders make money when the customer succeeds; fourth, payment history should be reported to the credit bureaus; fifth, no fine print; sixth, multiple channels for applications and payment for customers; and seventh, customer service that meets the needs of the customer and not just the lender. In closing, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this important topic and remind all of us that we are here to get this right for consumers rather than to make each other wrong. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Reeder can be found on page 67 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Reeder. Mr. Sherrill, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHERRILL, CEO, IMPERIAL CLEANING SYSTEMS Mr. Sherrill. Good afternoon, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Robert Sherrill, and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak to you about my experience with payday and title loans. I am not sure if I am the only person on this panel who has actually used these products, but I hope that with my testimony I can shed some light on how important they were for me at the time when I had no other options. Payday and title loans helped me when I had nowhere to else to turn. I might not be here if these forms of credit were not available to me. In your invitation letter to me, you asked me to discuss research describing the various harms consumers may suffer when utilizing these products. I cannot talk about research, but I can talk about my personal experience. When I took out my payday loan, I knew what it would cost me. While I have not taken out a payday loan recently, I still know what they cost. Given my circumstances at the time and the lack of other options, I determined that this basic small loan was the best option for me. In fact, it was a cheaper and easier solution than the available alternatives. I am lucky that there was a lender available that would loan to someone like me in my circumstances. But let me get back to the beginning of my story. When I was young, nobody taught me about money and finances, which is a situation not uncommon to many people. Because of family issues and hard times, I ended up raising myself and getting involved in selling drugs, which ultimately led to me going to prison. I am not proud of this, but it is an important part of my experience. When I got out of prison, the deck was stacked against me. I was a felon with no credit, no education, and very little income. I would ask you to put yourself in a lender's shoes. Would you have made a loan to me? Would you have offered me a lifeline? Would you have given me credit with nothing to prove I was creditworthy but my word? Due to my release and probation requirements, I found a job as a food busser at a local Italian restaurant. I worked very hard day-to-day to make ends meet. After a year, I was given a 10-cent raise. It was then I knew I had to make a change in my life. When I started my business, no one would give me a loan. I knew this because I applied and I was rejected several times. Most banks wouldn't even let me open an account. The only account I could get was with the credit union, because I pled my case. Because of my history, the only company willing to front me the money I needed was a local payday lender in Nashville called Advance Financial. If Advance Financial had not been an option, I would likely not be here testifying to you today. It is unfair for anyone to assume that everyday people don't know what they are getting into or what repayment terms of a loan are going to be. That assumption is based on the conclusion that ordinary people are uneducated or too unsophisticated to make smart financial decisions. In my situation, I was tracking every dollar I had. I knew when money was coming in and I knew when it was going out. I knew that I would have to repay the loans that I took out. When I went to Advance Financial, every part of the process was explained clearly and fairly, including when payments were due, how much they would be, and how much it would cost me for the loan. Today, the business that I started with a payday loan is Nashville's premier construction and commercial cleaning service. I am a minority certified business belonging to the Chamber of Commerce, the Better Business Bureau, and Nashville's Rotary Club. Now, I qualify for lines of credit and other types of loans. I have developed a solid business foundation. But it is all because of the lifeline that Advance Financial gave me when no one else would give me the time of day. I have also come to learn from being in business that sometimes a market determines what things cost. Many today will probably ask if I would like these types of loans to be cheaper. Well, there are a lot of things in life that I wish were cheaper. But forcing these lenders out of business would not make loans cheaper; it would only hurt people in a situation like I was in. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of this statement. I understood what a payday loan was going to cost me when I took it out, and I understood when I had to pay it back. The best consumer protection that I got was to have someplace to go that was willing to make a loan to me, and to explain the loan I got. I can also tell you that if I had not had that option-- [audio malfunction]. Chairman Meeks. The microphone must have gone out. Give him 30 seconds to wrap up. Mr. Sherrill. If you eliminate these loans and these lenders, where do you expect people to turn for a lifeline? I had tried everything else. For many people like me, these products are a first step towards getting things back together. People choose them because they are better than the alternatives. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. We should trust people to choose what is best for their own situations, not take options away from them, because the most expensive credit is the credit you cannot get when you need it. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sherrill can be found on page 78 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you. And Mr. Zuluaga, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DIEGO ZULUAGA, POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR MONETARY AND FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES, CATO INSTITUTE Mr. Zuluaga. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon. My name is Diego Zuluaga, and I am a policy analyst at the Cato Institute Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives. Creating the conditions for a dynamic and competitive market for short-term credit is essential to promoting financial security and financial inclusion. At a time when 24 percent of American families and 50 percent of low-income families lack enough liquid savings to cover a $400 emergency expense, broad and immediate access to credit is a matter of great urgency. Furthermore, with 8.4 million households unbanked and another 24 million underbanked, a share of that emergency credit is bound to come from nonbanks, including payday and vehicle title lenders. Payday loans are often one of very few options available to cash-strapped households. Sixteen percent of payday borrowers use these loans to cover emergencies, while 69 percent borrow to pay for recurring items, such as rent and utility bills. Payday loans offer a way to cope with unexpected events and month-to-month income volatility, which is a reality for more than a third of low-income households. While the media often describe payday loans as predatory, the evidence suggests otherwise. Professor Ronald Mann of Columbia Law School, in a study quoted extensively by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, finds that 60 percent of payday borrowers accurately estimate the time it will take them to repay the loan. And importantly, there is no systematic bias in their predictions of repayment, so borrowers overestimate roughly as much as they underestimate the time it will take them to repay. Professor Mann's results contradict the assertion that payday borrowers are misled by predatory lenders or that they suffer from some behavioral bias. The academic literature, in fact, on payday lending finds that these loans are helpful to borrowers and that payday loan bans are harmful, at least as often as it finds the opposite. Payday borrowers make the best of limited options. As Professor Lisa Servon of the University of Pennsylvania writes, ``The question is whether expensive credit is better than no credit at all.'' Like Professor Servon, I worry that placing an interest cap on short-term credit would altogether remove access to emergency funds for the most vulnerable Americans. Now, I have had the opportunity to study in detail the impact of payday loan interest rate caps in the United Kingdom. While U.K. regulators expected loan volume to decline by just 11 percent after the introduction of an interest cap, it dropped by 56 percent. That is 5 times what regulators estimated within 18 months. The number of borrowers dropped by 53 percent, versus 21 percent, which was the estimate. Now, given that the regulators' forecast aimed for the ``optimal amount of payday borrowing,'' this miscalibration of the cap's impact almost surely left hundreds of thousands of payday borrowers worse off. I worry that the Bureau's payday rule, which predicts loan volume to drop by up to 68 percent, but expects most borrowers to retain access to payday facilities, will actually prove similarly overly optimistic and the consequences of regulatory error could be very damaging, as the U.K. case demonstrates. Low usury caps were once widespread across American credit markets. But progressive reformers in the early 1900s recognized that caps harm low-income people by throwing them into the hands of loan sharks. Gradually, they persuaded legislators to lift or remove interest caps, helping a formal market for short-term credit to flourish. Placing a cap on small-dollar loans today risks leaving vulnerable households at the mercy of either family members or unscrupulous providers, or otherwise forcing them to go without basic necessities. Policymakers can, however, do more to promote financial inclusion, and I welcome efforts to bring a greater focus on underserved households to financial regulators. For example, I think the CFPB and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should conduct a joint review of the regulatory costs to banks of maintaining deposit accounts. This will permit them to compare the cost of regulation with its benefits and to determine whether financial regulation excludes low-income and minority borrowers who are overwhelmingly represented among the ranks of the unbanked. But I wouldn't limit this work to fostering access to depository institutions, important as such access is. Financial innovations like mobile money accounts have delivered impressive results around the world. And with 94 percent of Americans now owning a cellphone, mobile accounts could bring essential financial services to households which, for reasons related to cost or trust or both, do not own a bank account. Mobile payments could therefore help low-income consumers avoid account fees and gradually gain access to other financial services and build a credit record. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Zuluaga can be found on page 95 of the appendix.] Chairman Meeks. Thank you. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask questions. Let me first say that I listened very intently to everyone on this panel, and I did not hear one person say that those who are in low-income areas, et cetera, should not have access to some financial services, not one. What I did hear is some say that we do have basically--they didn't use these words, but we have some who will con people; we have some who will just come and try to confuse people for their own benefit, for their own basis. And so they don't mind whether or not someone gets trapped in a loan that they can't get out of because that is not their interest, not that individual. Their interest is to make as much money as they can at the expense of someone else. And so when we had the Dodd-Frank Act, what we did was, we said we were going to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so that somebody can review this, because we know we have good people, we have bad people, so that somebody could review it and make an impartial, if you will, determination, to make sure that you could continue to do business, if that is what you wanted to do, but to also serve someone who needed a loan. Now, one of the things--and one of the reasons why we are here is that immediately the CFPB, after the change of Administrations, got rid of the unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and how that was defined. So if you get rid of that, you have a fixed game, because you have a situation where on one side--and yes Mr. Sherrill, I agree with you that some people know how to manage their money and some don't. That is a fact. And as a matter of public policy, we have to look out and protect those who don't. I would also say--and my question would go to Mr. McDonald, because one of the basic tests would be ability to pay. If somebody comes--and I would now ask you this question later, Mr. Sherrill--and I have no ability to pay--I have no idea how I am going to pay you back, no because nobody is going to give you any money, not if they are serious. But you have to show some ability to pay it back. That is how we got in the financial crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, in 2008, when people were giving no-doc loans, and it almost brought our financial institutions, our financial services and this country to its knees. Mr. McDonald, you work in these communities and you have a financial institution. What is the best way you would think to make sure that someone has the ability to pay when you make a loan at your facility? Mr. McDonald. So we follow a couple of different guidelines, but we definitely ask for verification of income, via a copy of their paystub or a W-2 or 1099. Chairman Meeks. So you do check to make sure that they have a job or some kind of way to pay? Mr. McDonald. Absolutely. Chairman Meeks. All right. Now, Mr. Reeder, in my limited time, because I listened--your testimony was so riveting, I had to take up my time earlier with that comment. But I want to make sure--I wear this suit now, but I come from public housing. My parents were poor, okay? And I can remember that they had loan sharks back then. And so it wasn't money; they'd take your limb, too. But I also could know when they were getting ripped off. I am looking at ways to make sure that we have some ability for financial services in the community. Fintechs have been talked about, but fintechs unregulated have the same problems. Can you give us some ideas on how fintechs should be regulated or how they could be helpful in this industry? Mr. Reeder. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of regulation, obviously a number of financial institutions are regulated at the State level. But it is true, for purposes of Dodd-Frank, that many institutions in what people broadly call fintech are not covered persons under Dodd- Frank for the CFPB. So one piece there is that the CFPB would need to write a larger participant rule for a number of these institutions in order to supervise them. And for many people who have been regulators, supervision is a very powerful tool to both understand what the institutions are doing, but more importantly what are the outcomes for the consumer. So I think that is a capability that the Federal Government has today, if the CFPB were to write a larger participant rule. Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I am out of time, and I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Luetkemeyer, for 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think most of the testimony today has centered around the cap, the APR of 36 percent or higher rates that we are talking about. And to me it is a little difficult to accept the arguments from the standpoint that when you are looking at a short-term loan, to me, that is very similar to a service charge. In my testimony, in my opening comment, I said, look, if you have a plumbing problem at your house, you call the plumber. And he comes and he fixes it within 30 minutes and charges you 50 bucks. Did he charge you 50 bucks or did he charge you $100 bucks an hour. To me, he charged me 50 bucks because it took him that long to get there, he had to pay for his tools, pay for his insurance, he had to pay for his workmen's comp, he had to pay for his gas and oil to get there. It is a service charge to provide that product. And so I think today when we use APR on short-term lending, it is a disservice to everybody. To me, personally, I don't think you need to be using an APR unless it is an annual-- unless you are over 12 months. If it is a 12-month loan or more, you use an APR. Anything less than that has to be a service charge. What does it cost to put the loan on the books? Mr. McDonald, you are in the banking business, what does it cost you to put a loan on the books, a small-dollar loan? Does it cost 15 bucks? Is that going to cover it? Mr. McDonald. I don't have that exact number. However, it does cost money to market to those individuals and also use our back office to book those loans, yes. Mr. Luetkemeyer. So there is a cost there that has to be covered, otherwise that service is not going to be provided. So you get into the situation of, well, we don't have any services or the loans are misused or abused. The CFPB in the fall of 2018, their own members, so that is 7/10th of 1 percent were the complaints received by CFPB on smaller loans or payday loans, which is consistently one of the lowest of the various financial products according to CFPB. When I was in the State House in Missouri, as a State rep, my committee oversaw--I was the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and what I always did every year was go look at the complaints with regards to banks, payday lending, and all the different services that were seen by the division of finance. Payday lending was always the lowest number of complaints of any of the financial groups. So I think we are looking at something here that is a worthwhile service. Mr. Sherrill, you tell a compelling story. Where would you have gone if you wouldn't have had the opportunity to have that loan? What was your next step if you didn't get the loan? Mr. Sherrill. Coming from where I come from, my next step was going back to the streets. The only thing that stands between the streets and the pawn shop is payday lending, that is it, that is all we have, so you have to do what you have to do. Mr. Luetkemeyer. So what we need to do in your mind would be help folks have more access to credit. If we need to tweak the laws, need to improve it, that would be the way to go rather than trying to dismiss it. And you talked about the APR as well, you had some compelling testimony. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Mr. Sherrill. Yes. I mean, the payday loan I got was just for a couple of weeks. It wasn't for a year. I have never known anyone to receive a payday loan for a year. So I would be confused when people say APR, I kind of think about buying a car or something like that, but-- Mr. Luetkemeyer. I know when I was in the House in Missouri, we redid the payday lending laws. We were actually model legislation for the whole country for a long time. And one of the things that we did was put a box on the form that showed what the actual cost of the loan was going to be, how much you were actually going to pay with interest and charges. So there was a disclosure. To me, that is helpful to you, to actually see the costs. You said you looked at it, and you knew what it was going to cost you. Mr. Sherrill. Yes, when I went in there they explained to me, this is what we are giving you. This is what we expect back at this time. If you don't pay it back, then this is what happens. You sign something that you understand this before they give you any money. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Mr. Reeder, in your testimony you note that an annualized percentage rate is a very poor tool for the small-dollar lending market. Would you like to explain that a little bit? Mr. Reeder. Sure. APR was really created to compare like financial products to one another, so it is a shopping tool. If I were to get a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage from Bank A, and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage from Bank B, I would be able to take the APR and compare to understand what were the interest rates and the charges. So that is what it was designed for. The problem becomes, as the term gets shorter and shorter, the APR becomes geometric, so it increases rapidly. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Okay. I have one more quick question. Mr. Zuluaga, you talked about the UK and how they estimated that the loan volume would decline slightly and it went over 56 percent. Where did those people go who no longer have access to credit? Mr. Zuluaga. Mostly to family members, from the research that has been done afterwards. But those are the people who have access to alternative options. A lot of people just go without. Mr. Luetkemeyer. They go without. What about some of the unscrupulous folks on the streets or on offline lending, which is unregulated. Is that possible as well? Mr. Zuluaga. It could be possible, it's very hard to monitor, or course, and that is one of the challenges. At least now we can monitor a lot of these lenders and they are in the open. Thank you. Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the Chair of the full Financial Services Committee, the Honorable Maxine Waters, for 5 minutes. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Haynes, as Senior Pastor at Friendship-West Baptist Church, you moderated a panel I convened of interfaith leaders to address predatory lending in American communities, and working with members of your community in Dallas, Texas, many of whom have been targeted by predatory payday loan and auto title loan stores. You stated that, ``We want access to credit, but it must be quality credit. Anything less adds to the stress of the desperate and the needy. Well-crafted and compassionate legislation can weed out the predators, and enable more responsible and reputable lenders to thrive while rendering a helpful service to communities.'' Can you tell us about the terrible consequences of falling into payday debt traps, and your efforts as a faith leader to help these vulnerable consumers? Mr. Haynes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First and foremost, of course, when you fall into the debt trap, one of the things that accelerates the downward spiral are the overdraft fees, not to mention the fact that I have had a number of persons come to me, and along with their overdraft fees, some have just basically had their bank accounts wiped out. They were pressured. They were called on-the-job. Not to mention, family members were harassed. And so this is something that is predatory. And so what we are calling for is a system. One of the things that I have heard repeatedly from the opposition is that we have some who do well because they had no other option. And my point is, you always have some who are good enough to beat the system. But if the system is broken, you want to correct the system. Tupac Shakur talked about a rose out of concrete. Well, if one rose can burst through the concrete, we salute that rose. But what about the rest of the seeds who don't make it? And that is why we are concerned about a predatory industry that continues to harass individuals into deeper and deeper debt. And so, again, they are asking for a life preserver and they end up with one made of iron that causes them to sink further and further in debt. Chairwoman Waters. Wow. Well, Pastor, let me ask you this. As we have wrestled with this very, very troubling problem in this country, and as we have fought off the payday lending industry, et cetera, we have had people come to us with different ideas and different proposals. One of them that seems to be emerging is, what about limiting payday lending interest rates to 36 percent the way they do for veterans? Mr. Haynes. Right. Chairwoman Waters. Have you had a chance to think about that? Mr. Haynes. Oh, without question. Not only that, but even in our church, we have a credit union, a Federal credit union, and we offer micro loans, small-dollar loans. And our interest rate is 28 percent. It is a great business model because it is moral and just. Thirty six percent is a moral and just interest rate. It is a model that will work as opposed to prey on individuals. It is a model that will help them to do what the payday industry claims they want to do, and that is is to get out of debt--get out of the debt trap, and at the same time, move forward in their lives. And so 36 percent, I think, is not only moral, it is just, and it is doable. Chairwoman Waters. Wow. Well, I thank you for sharing that with us because some of us who were not thinking about anything but trying to stop the payday loan industry because of all of the trauma and the pain that was experienced by people who were desperate who needed some help and would go to them, but yet get caught in that debt trap that you talked about, we had not thought a lot about doing what we do for the veterans. Mr. Haynes. Yes. Chairwoman Waters. And when I began to think about that, I thought I wanted you here to ask what you thought about it, to get your opinion because of the work that you have put into it, the work that your community has done, the work that the church has done. And I know that you have had to run some out of Dallas basically who were exploiting. And so now we have these proposals, and you have given me something to think deeper about. Because what you are doing in your church were with your loans at 28 percent, it is working, and what we have been doing with the veterans at 36 percent, it means that perhaps we can do the same with the entire industry. So I want to thank you for coming, I know on short notice, but you are so appreciated. And I certainly appreciate you, and thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 minutes. Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel for taking the time to be here. Obviously, I think all of us want to make sure that people are treated fairly, but we also have regulations, ability to repay that need to be addressed. And I don't want to put anybody on the spot here, but Mr. McDonald, you listened to Mr. Sherrill's testimony. Would you have made him a loan coming out of prison? Mr. McDonald. That depends on several factors, and obviously, we look at credit history, we look at repayment capacity-- Mr. Tipton. Out of prison with no job, probably couldn't have made the loan at that time. Mr. McDonald. I believe he said he had a job. And we certainly have lent money to individuals who come from unfortunate backgrounds, who may not have a long history of income, but we have certainly made loans. Mr. Tipton. I am just a little interested in your model, you are a CDFI, right? Mr. McDonald. Yes. Mr. Tipton. All right. Do you make $100 loans? Mr. McDonald. No, our minimum is $500. Mr. Tipton. So if Mr. Sherrill needs $100, $200, to be able to fix his car, you won't cover that loan? Mr. McDonald. No, sir, not at this time. Mr. Tipton. Where do they go? Mr. McDonald. They would go to a payday lender. Mr. Tipton. Is that their only option? Mr. McDonald. In some cases. Mr. Tipton. Probably in most cases. Please understand, I am not trying to put you on the spot. It is just we do have regulations in place, and it is part of the only purpose of the committee in terms of what we are doing in terms of accountability on the banks and the institutions. And when you are talking about the interest rate that you do charge on the Freedom Fast loan, how does that compare to somebody with an 800 credit score? Mr. McDonald. It is a tiered scale based on-- Mr. Tipton. What would you charge for that same loan, $600, for somebody who has an 800 credit score? Mr. McDonald. Unfortunately, I don't have our rate matrix memorized. Mr. Tipton. It probably would be a lot less, though, wouldn't it? Mr. McDonald. So just in general, our short-term loan products will cap at 19.9 on the interest rate side, but I am not really sure how that will calculate out into the APR. But as the example that I used earlier, we have an average APR of 34.6 percent, I believe. Mr. Tipton. Okay. Well, I guess the point I am trying to make is this obviously is a challenge for people with low income to be able to deal with. Mr. Sherrill, you have lived that life. But it is going to be some actual access to some capital at the times when people need it to be able to address that. In my home State of Colorado, we went through several iterations. In November of 2018, we passed, by referendum, a new law, that is going to be capping that at 36 percent effectively. And that was the balance that was struck to be able to address that in terms of a challenge for short-term credit products that we have. Mr. Sherrill, maybe you could address this a little bit more. In terms of the availability of payday lending, where do people go in the case of--if they only need that $200, $300 to be able to get a loan? If payday lending, as an example, doesn't exist, what do they do? Mr. Sherrill. Go back to the streets or go ask a family member. But I come from a low-income family. My family doesn't have any money. So, if it wasn't for me getting the payday loan, I would have gone back to the streets. That is just realistic. It sounds good in testimony for people to get up here and say what is being said right now, but in reality, where I am from, it affects many people. I am not the only one with this story. There are many people who use these services and use them responsibly, and we need to spotlight that, and then you would understand because there are no other options. Mr. Tipton. Well, Mr. Sherrill, in 2013, the Fed, the OCC, and the FDIC issued guidance because most banks--to stop making or providing products to the customers in terms of short-term small-dollar loans. These are institutions that are well- regulated and have to make sure that you have the ability to repay, as Mr. McDonald was talking about. What is a good solution to be able to fill that gap for the short-term loans? Should we extend that to more banks or just-- Mr. Sherrill. I really don't know what the answer--the magic bullet should be. But I know taking this option away from low-income people or people who don't have access to credit or who don't have a history of credit, will be doing a disservice to the community. Mr. Tipton. Mr. Zuluaga? Mr. Zuluaga. Just quickly, I think banks are now very concerned about coming back into this because of that guidance. And unless there are very strong and clear signals that these products are going to be tolerated and accepted and not prosecuted, I think we will run out of options if we don't continue to allow payday loans. Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have 56 million unbanked and underbanked consumers in this country. So many of them are victims, as has been pointed out. I think the good Reverend Dr. Frederick Douglass, love that name, and Frederick Douglass, as you may know. And your comments were right on target--all of your comments are. I have introduced two major pieces of legislation that I want to kind of get the witnesses' reaction on. The first one is the Improving Access to Traditional Banking Act of 2019. And what this Act would do, is it would create an office that is specifically tasked with examining factors contributing to households that are unbanked and underbanked, identifying them, their status, and developing the best business practices for improving that situation. Mr. Sherrill, you are right. Where else do they have to go? But to some of these people, if we don't provide a way and get that information to them. Another bill that I have is the Fintech Act. And as you know, and I want to get comments from you. Some of these fintech companies are dealing with this area because they are developing partnerships with some of the traditional banks that will not even deal with some of the unbanked and underbanked. So what I am saying is that there are things out there that we are trying to work with to get that. So let me just ask you, Mr. McDonald, you are from the National Bankers Association, tell me about this. What about the impact of these fintechs helping some of these people that traditional banks won't help? Are you aware of some of those partnerships there? Mr. McDonald. Yes, I am. And as an organization, we actually do encourage partnerships with fintechs, obviously, to a certain extent. But coupled with the technology and the know- how of a traditional bank, it could actually bring down the costs and make the costs more efficient and product and service more efficient and effective. And so that is how we have been leveraging our experience. Mr. Scott. Very good. Now, Mr. McDonald, let me ask you, from the banker's standpoint, can you tell us the importance of financial inclusion in the traditional banking sector, and in particular, how increased safety and affordability and convenience of financial services can have a positive impact on low- and moderate-income consumers? How can this bill--what we are trying to do with this bill is to try to identify the problem, bring it together, and then apply the necessary resources of coordination to really get to the heart of the matter, and make these--and try to put an end or at least slow down these predatory lenders. They have nowhere else to go because they don't have a checking account, they don't have a banking account. We have to create this--does that make sense to you? Mr. McDonald. Absolutely. And the National Bankers Association will be--open doors and we are definitely willing to speak further in terms of ideas and strategies around solving that problem. It is not an easy problem, obviously, but we definitely welcome ideas and strategies. Mr. Scott. All right. Now, Mr. Reeder, you are the president of the Innovation--I think--what is that, the technological innovation and-- Mr. Reeder. The Center for Financial Services Innovation? Mr. Scott. Yes. And that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to use these innovators, the fintechs, the other areas to try to create some answers and solutions to this. Are we making some progress with the fintechs, what our initiatives would be doing, what our bill would be doing in terms of trying to find ways that we can increase the access of capital to these people, lending to them? Mr. Reeder. Mr. Chairman, should I answer another time, I know the time has expired? Chairman Meeks. I am going to let you finish. Go ahead. I have my own judgment here. Mr. Reeder. Yes, I think there is enormous opportunity. We work with companies that do things such as allowing people access to wages that they have already earned. We live in a country where people work and they are not paid for their work for some period of time, sometimes 2 weeks, sometimes a month. So we work with people to allow people access to assets that they already have. There is obviously a lot of work to help understand who is credit-worthy. Because of a long history of discrimination in this country, credit scores and other traditional means have biases that are embedded in them, they are very difficult to undue. And so there are opportunities for us to do that. So in my testimony, I list a number of companies that-- Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time, I appreciate it. Chairman Meeks. I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 5 minutes. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuluaga, a question for you. Many small banks and credit unions in my congressional district in central Kentucky have told me that overly zealous supervision, over-regulation, and higher compliance costs stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulations have forced those lenders out of the small-dollar lending business, and out of the consumer lending space altogether. This has had the impact of pushing many borrowers to payday lenders and other forms of nonbank and noncredit union lenders. Is the answer for unbanked credit-challenged borrowers more regulation and banning higher-cost products? Or is the answer more competition and choice through financial deregulation? And as you answer that question, keep in mind the testimony from Ms. Standaert, who said that competition is not the answer. Mr. Zuluaga. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think the answer is clearly more competition and more choice, because that drives prices down for consumers, it creates options that are more well-adjusted to exactly what it is that they need and want, and it also encourages continued innovation so that whatever negative features are in a financial product are no longer present there. In the particular case of small-dollar lending, it was mentioned before that there was a 2013 guidance from the OCC and the FDIC that led banks to retreat entirely from the small- dollar lending market, and this is in keeping with the general retreat of banks, as you suggested, since passage of the Dodd- Frank Act. Mr. Barr. So you are telling me that banks and credit unions have retreated from this space after Dodd-Frank? Mr. Zuluaga. The evidence that I have seen for banks, decidedly yes, but for credit unions, I will have to get back to you, because they do some different types of--they offer some types of alternative products, but obviously they don't reach everybody. Mr. Barr. I can tell you the credit unions and community banks have told me that they exited consumer lending post-Dodd- Frank, because of an avalanche of regulations. But let me explore this idea of an APR rate cap. In 2018, a major super regional bank in the United States began offering small-dollar short-term loans. The program has a limited scope to those customers with a current banking account. And even with the pricing advantages of lower capital costs and additional risk mitigation employed by that bank, in order for the program to be sustainable, the bank is charging interest rates between about 71 percent and 88 percent APR, more than double the 36 percent APR rate cap that has been advocated by some. If a large super regional institution with all of its market advantages and economies of scale can't make a 36 percent APR work, why is it realistic to think that a State- licensed or nonbank lender could do that? Mr. Zuluaga. I don't think it is realistic, Congressman. And in fact, I think we need to think about the small-dollar lender space, it is something of a spectrum, that are products for prime borrowers that carry low rates because they have a credit history and they have a record of paying back their debts. Some people, for various different reasons, don't necessarily have access to such low rates. In removing the options that they have, the people that will accept them as borrowers doesn't make them better off it. It makes it difficult for them to build a credit record. It makes it difficult for them to survive emergencies and so on. Mr. Barr. Reverend Dr. Haynes, thank you for your advocacy and work to empower people who are credit-challenged and are struggling financially. Let me ask you this, in the course of your advocacy, have you ever engaged those populations that you minister to, that you serve in financial literacy, specifically on payday loans, to say, educate those vulnerable populations about the difference between the interest rate if the product is used as it is designed, meaning that it is paid off in 2 weeks or 4 weeks, as opposed to rolling it over, in order to avoid that triple digit APR, which it is never designed to be? Mr. Haynes. Well, yes, we have--to answer your question, we do have, not only financial literacy classes for those who find themselves in that predicament, but we also, again, offer the small-dollar, 28 percent loan, micro loan for those persons who are struggling. And a part of their getting the loan is going through the class. Mr. Barr. And Mr. McDonald, I appreciate your sandbox approach, and I also appreciate your advocacy for clarifying true lender to create liquidity in the secondary market with fintech. Let me ask you this, without the small-dollar loan program, without technical assistance grants, could you offer small-dollar loans, or is taxpayer assistance essential in order to originate and service small-dollar loans with interest rates below 36 percent? Mr. McDonald. I would not say it is essential. This is a specific business model that we have chosen as an organization. And a lot of organizations within the MBA have chosen to do so as well. So our profits are not at peer group levels. We have sort of-- Mr. Barr. Yes, and I am sorry, my time has expired. But what I worry about is that without taxpayer assistance, Mr. Sherrill doesn't have an alternative, and he has testified to that today. And so the only model that works is having the government compete, and compete with private businesses and put them out of business. And there is a limit to the amount that taxpayers can provide, and so we do need private capital to provide access to credit for some folks. And I yield back. Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I have now evened it up, I gave Mr. Scott 40 seconds extra and I have given Mr. Barr 40 seconds extra. So now, I will go back to my 5-minute rule. And the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairman Meeks. And I welcome this opportunity to examine the practices of this industry, which it seems more often than not, instead of offering a life raft has offered dead weight, wreaking financial havoc in any community that it touches. I am, however, thankful for the protections of my home State of Massachusetts, which has guarded against these debt traps. Payday loans are not allowed in my State, and my constituents, anywhere, are not exactly clambering for a 400 percent interest loan. In fact, according to the Center for Responsible Lending report, consumers in Massachusetts saved more than $248 million in 2017 as a result of these protections. Ms. Standaert, can you tell me, based on your organization's research, how big of a role the State's rate cap has in creating these savings? Ms. Standaert. Thank you, Representative Pressley, for the question. A rate cap such as what Massachusetts has in place is the most effective protection against the debt trap, it is due to the rate cap that has garnered the millions of dollars of savings for your own residents, and it is the same rate cap that is saving over $5 billion a year to residents across the country in similar States. Ms. Pressley. And so where consumers do not have these protections, payday and small-dollar lenders have preyed on the desperation of the working poor, turning their need for a dollar today into a profit of $2 tomorrow. But as we examine this industry, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge its disparate impact on communities of color. So, open to anyone on the panel who would care to comment, very briefly, just to better understand the common threads of these intrenched inequities, what is the profile of a typical payday loan borrower? Mr. Whittaker. Thank you, Representative Pressley. The typical profile, I think if you look on this panel you can see the extremes of the profile. Mr. Sherrill has spoke about not having access to credit, and not having an opportunity to seek help in his situation. But when you provide a tool, a debt tool like this that is marketed as easy, accessible, and safe, people begin to stop looking for other options. There are many other options. People say that--well, Mr. Sherrill said that he didn't have family who could help him or there wasn't--they are low income, so there was no income. Well, there is family, there are friends, there is the sweat of your brow, if you need to go buy some clothes and sell them on eBay, there are many other options that are available. But when you put the easy solution in front of somebody and you say that this is safe, why continue to look for harder options? Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Whittaker. And picking up on that, since you said the magic word, ``marketing,'' I am curious about the marketing of these debt traps since the prevalence of them is in low-income communities and communities of color. So, Ms. Standaert, can you elaborate on where payday lenders are located and how they compete for businesses in these communities? Ms. Standaert. Yes. Thank you. Payday lenders explicitly state that they compete on factors such as location, convenience of service, and other things. Notably missing from the list is competition based on price. Everywhere that payday lenders operate, they charge the maximum rate allowed by law. So 300 to 400 percent interest rates, despite a bunch of them being clustered together. Then we also see that payday lenders disproportionately concentrate in communities of color. In California, for example, we see payday lenders locating at over 2 times the rate in black and Latino communities, than other similarly situated white communities. And this pattern exists all throughout the country: Michigan; Georgia; Florida; Louisiana; and Colorado, all have been documented. And so this combination of the importance of payday lending locations and their ability to get customers in the door. Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. Thank you. And then picking up on the Reverend's point about people, instead of getting a hand up, getting handcuffed. Mr. Peterson, I know you have done quite a bit of work on the industry's reliance on small claims courts, particularly in States like Utah that do not have interest rates or protections. So what happens when people can't repay? Are there criminal charges? What happens? Mr. Peterson. Well, I have a study coming out, it is not out yet, but we have been looking at collection efforts in small claims courts and we have been surprised to find that there are a lot of small claims borrowers who end up getting bench warrants issued for their arrest. Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. This is what is clear. In the universe with payday lending, is one answering the question of how to make poverty a sustainable profitable enterprise? A lot of people are getting rich off of keeping people poor. And so how do we reform anything that is based on that premise? The short answer is we don't. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, for 5 minutes. Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel, there are quite a few of you up here. But I do appreciate this, this is a very sensitive issue. Mr. Sherrill, I have to say, I am inspired. Your story is incredible. I think you saw that your story doesn't exactly fit in the narrative that some would like to paint, but I am particularly inspired, not just by you seeing the opportunity that this nation can give you, but by you finding a way around the obstacles and the hurdles. That is what makes this country great. The other aspect of it is I have been where you were. I have been in situations where early in my life after I left the military, I was trying to get a small business started, and I didn't find anyplace just to buy groceries for my family, I mean, it is--I just needed it for a short time. I knew the next check was coming from a job I did, but I didn't have anything to fill the gap. So sometimes people just don't know where it is coming from, and I am not defending the industry, but I am saying, any business exists where there is a need to fill. And often we create the problem ourselves, being government, by overregulating areas to where we can't fulfill some of those needs, and that is one of the concerns I have. And the chairman in his opening remarks brought up the statistic that 40 percent of U.S. adults could not cover a $400 emergency without selling property. I agree with Mr. Whittaker, maybe that is what you need to be doing to cover an emergency, if you have property. The problem I ran into in my situation was, I had just moved across the country and I had sold most everything I had to relocate to this new location. So we sometimes try to paint with a broad brush something that is--each individual person has a unique situation, and a lot of times these businesses exist to actually fulfill that need. Yes, they are charging a large amount--sometimes too much amount in interest, but yet, they are loaning to are folks who couldn't get the loan anywhere else. But, on the same hand, we are creating a situation because we have pretty much, through regulation, prohibited the banking community from making these small-dollar short-term loans. And I think that is part of the problem, we could relieve some of this if we could just allow these businesses to make these loans. I wrote a letter to the Federal Reserve asking and the FDIC last year, asking for both of them to join the OCC in allowing, banks, once again, to make these small-dollar short- term loans to constituents. So, quickly, Mr. McDonald, the FDIC recently accepted comments from stakeholders on small-dollar lending. And if the Federal Reserve and the FDIC explicitly stated that these loans are allowed, as the OCC did last year, would that encourage banks to get back into small-dollar lending? Mr. McDonald. I would certainly hope so. Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, I would, too. I think it would resolve some of the concerns that we have to give at least some folks an alternative. Mr. Reeder, as you know, Georgia is a hub for fintech and payment processing, and I also co-Chair, with my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Scott, the Fintech and Payments Caucus. When a bank or credit union partners with a fintech company to make these loans, do the same consumer protection requirements apply if the consumer got the loan directly from the bank? Mr. Reeder. If the consumer received it directly from the bank, yes, the OCC or the FDIC or whomever is the examiner in charge would have the same authority over that-- Mr. Loudermilk. Even if there is a fintech involved somewhere in that process? Mr. Reeder. Yes. The complication here is how the product is structured. The other avenue for regulators is third-party vendor management, which is a tool that bank regulators have, even in the event that the legal entity is a nonbank, the examiner in charge usually requires third-party vendor management to ensure that certain protections are in place. Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you. Last question. Mr. McDonald, in your testimony you discussed a regulatory sandbox, which I am highly in favor of, for banks to test small-dollar consumer loan products. Can you elaborate in the few seconds I have left? Mr. McDonald. Sure. So if regulatory bodies sort of allowed us to take on more risk without identifying them as high-risk loans, and that is sort of the problem that we had initially a few years back when we started doing this specific product. The scrutiny came where these loans were given to individuals with significantly lower interest rates, and they were identified as those high-risk loans. Now, over the years our regulators have become more comfortable with us managing a portfolio like that within a much larger portfolio. So to your point, yes, a sandbox approach where other community banks can operate in a very comfortable manner would definitely be helpful. Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Wexton, for 5 minutes. Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was glad to hear some testimony about the Military Lending Act (MLA), because that is something that really has impacted the people in my district in Virginia, which is the State I am from. It was enacted in 2007, and it imposes a 36 percent interest rate cap for payday loans for Active Duty servicemembers and their dependents. However, with the arrival of Mick Mulvaney, and now, Director Kraninger, the CFPB has decided to suspend MLA compliant supervision even though Federal law clearly directs that they conduct this supervision. Now, this is a big deal for us in Virginia because we have military bases. We don't really have payday lending, but as a result we have twice as many car title lenders, and they set up their shops near military bases, especially Quantico Marine Base, and the Norfolk Naval Base. Mr. Peterson, while you were at the CFPB, you worked with the Pentagon to help design MLA regulations. Is that correct? Mr. Peterson. Yes, Representative Wexton. Ms. Wexton. Okay. And can you describe what you were seeing in terms of predatory practices that were going on that you needed to guard against? Mr. Peterson. Sure. We saw a lot of evasion of the interest rate cap with companies that would redesign their products to get in the nooks and crannies of the rule to try to make triple digit and straight loans to our military servicemembers in ways that Congress had not intended, and that is why it was so important that we had a tight, well-drafted regulation, and also rigorous supervision and enforcement follow up. Ms. Wexton. So if CFPB is not enforcing these regulations, who is? Mr. Peterson. Well, they are claiming to enforce it. They are not doing preventative supervisory examinations, but the other prudential regulators also have supervisory authority. The Federal Trade Commission also has some enforcement authority. And also, servicemembers themselves can bring private causes of action to enforce that law. But it is very troubling that the only Federal regulator that has supervisory preventative examination authority over payday lenders is not conducting Military Lending Act compliance over those payday lenders and car title lenders that you just mentioned. That is a troubling development. Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. Ms. Standaert, I was looking at the new Center for Responsible Lending updated report about payday car title lenders draining nearly $8 billion in fees every year. Is that an accurate amount for the fees that they are collecting annually? Ms. Standaert. Yes, that is correct. Ms. Wexton. So this is a very lucrative business model for these operators. Is that correct? Ms. Standaert. Yes, again 75 percent of these collected are due to borrowers stuck in more than 10 loans a year. So the bulk is due to the debt trap. Ms. Wexton. Now, there are a number of States that have State protections against these payday or car title borrowing debt traps. Most of New England has enacted such legislation, as well as Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. What do people do in those States? Are they able to get credit? Ms. Standaert. Most importantly, consumers in those States are not stuck in the quicksand of the debt trap, and so they have--they are protected from these dangers, they have other options for addressing financial shortfalls, and they are able to move more quickly to pathways of building assets and wealth for their future. Ms. Wexton. And have you observed that the market has responded and that these folks still have access to credit, even though they are not caught in the debt trap? Ms. Standaert. Yes, that is correct. Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. I yield back. Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Budd, for 5 minutes. Mr. Budd. Thank you, Chairman Meeks, for yielding, and for hosting this hearing. I also want to thank all of the witnesses for sticking around. I am particularly taken, Mr. Sherrill, by your story, and not just because of your background, but also because of the industry that you are in, and that is my family's business that I grew up in. And so I appreciate what you do day-in and day- out, and the customers and their issues and the challenges you face, not from a background perspective, but from the business perspective. And custodial and janitorial work is a tough business, it is a noble business, and I appreciate what you do. My family's business started around 1963, and it is now in its third generation. So you might have a legacy on your hands. I wish the best to you. So thanks for what you do. Mr. McDonald, in 2013 the OCC and the FDIC issued guidance placing strict restrictions on a bank's ability to offer deposit advanced products. So how has this decision by the regulators, coupled with the current regulatory environment, affected your bank's ability to offer small-dollar loans to consumers? Mr. McDonald. Over the years, we have become more comfortable in sharing our experience with small-dollar loan products with our regulators. And as a business model, we actually are okay with doing less than peer group numbers. And so with their approval and with their oversight, we are okay with doing small-dollar loans within a certain perimeter. Mr. Budd. I want to expand this to all of the panelists. Would you agree that it is good for consumers in an unforeseen situation where they are in immediate need of funds to allow highly regulated or what we think of as normal banks to offer a small-dollar lending product? And if we could just start from the right and go this way--my right. Mr. Zuluaga. I think it is absolutely right for that to be the case. My only caveat is that banks generally require a credit history and an experience of the borrower. So they will be able to help out a lot of people if the environment is created for that, but that doesn't mean that some people won't rely on alternative options because they are unbanked or because they do not have a credit score that is sufficient to obtain a loan from the bank. Mr. Budd. Mr. Sherrill? Mr. Sherrill. Can you repeat the question for me? Mr. Budd. Sure. So we are asking if your regular normal bank should be able to offer these small-dollar loans. It seems that since 2013, they haven't be able to due to the regulators making a lot of rules where they can't. If anybody has an opinion? If you want to weigh in, great, if you would like to not weigh in, that is okay as well. But if you have any thoughts, please? Mr. Sherrill. I think that if they could ,they would be doing it by now. Payday lending in my city is the only thing that is going. I don't see any other alternatives. I keep hearing that word though, but I don't know of any. I am a businessman. I am smart. I can find the money if it is there. It is not there. Mr. Budd. Thank you. Mr. Reeder. I would support that with the one caveat of the relationship between overdraft and the small-dollar credit offered by a bank and sort of how those two interact. But our organization helped design the U.S. Bank product, and I have been a long time supporter of small-dollar credit that is bank- issued. Mr. Budd. Thank you. Mr. Peterson. It is simply not accurate to say that banks or credit unions are not offering small-dollar loans. In fact, every credit card in America can be used to expand small-dollar credit; you just borrow a little bit of money on your credit card. And every credit card in America also includes a free payday loan for borrowers who are not maintaining a balance, a monthly balance, during the grace period. So you can borrow $100, $150, $200, $300 on your credit card and then repay that. Now, not everybody has access to credit cards, but banks have done a pretty good job of increasing availability for credit, and have a variety of credit cards that are available out there for people with subprime credit histories, especially if they are willing to put down a deposit on the card. It is one alternative; there are lots of others out there. So I think there are plenty of credit opportunities out there across the country, and that is just factually driven at interest rates that are below 36 percent. Mr. Budd. All right. Thank you. Ms. Standaert. Yes, banks should not start acting like the payday lenders on the corner. At the time before the 2013 regulations, those direct deposit advance loans trapped people, on average, in 19 loans in a year at effective rates of 200 to 300 percent. And those borrowers were also experiencing the harm of the overdraft. So banks should not be in the business of offering harmful small-dollar credit and should stay under the 36 percent rate cap. Mr. Budd. Thank you. My time has nearly expired. I will finish with this. Continued innovations and financial technology will, in my view, also create more credit opportunities for the consumer offering them a product at a lower price point. And I hope this committee can continue to support further development in this space because it should play a continued role in the small-dollar space, along with banks and payday lenders. I yield back. Thank you all. Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I now recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer. Reverend, you mentioned that you provide micro loans? Mr. Haynes. Yes. Ms. Velazquez. Have you partnered with the SBA? Mr. Haynes. Pardon me? Ms. Velazquez. Have you partnered with the Small Business Administration? Mr. Haynes. No, we have not. Ms. Velazquez. And why is that? Would you--so the Small Business Administration has a micro loan program, and they provide money to intermediaries like you so that you could provide technical assistance to the borrowers, because it is not only about providing access to capital, but making sure that these individuals will succeed in their enterprises. So I will suggest to you that maybe you should explore that option. Mr. Haynes. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Velazquez. And so for the Republicans who are concerned about providing access to capital to low-income communities, they should advise the President not to zero-out the micro lending program that we have under SBA. Mr. Reeder, online lenders, so-called fintech lenders, originated almost $23 billion in small-dollar consumer and small business loans in 2015, according to one estimate. And as you know, expansion in this area has been rapid, growing 163 percent between 2011 and 2015. Do you think the current regulatory environment is doing an appropriate job balancing investor protections and access to capital? What possible changes would you make? Mr. Reeder. Thank you for the question. A couple of things. One, I would note that small business credit has unique features in that it does not have the same protections as consumer credit. So in the case of consumer credit, the Truth in Lending Act applies, which requires a set of disclosures and requires a computation of an APR. That does not apply to small business credit. I think that is something that should be considered. On a positive note, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act does apply to small business credit. One distinction I would make in this space, which is very important, is that there are lenders and there are merchant cash advance businesses. Lenders are subject to the same laws as others on the State level as being lenders. Merchant cash advance businesses in general are not considered lenders for State law, and that creates a set of issues from a regulatory standpoint. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Peterson, would you like to comment? Mr. Peterson. Could you repeat the question, please? Ms. Velazquez. Is there anything we should do in the regulatory climate to provide investor protections and access to capital? What changes would you make to the current regulatory environment? Mr. Peterson. I would recommend expanding the Military Lending Act that is currently functioning and doing a great job for our active duty servicemembers right now, and expanding those protections to all Americans all across the country. There will still be plenty of access to credit and that will crowd out some of the worst predatory abuses. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Reeder, reports indicate that the average online loan carries an interest rate that is much higher than compared to a traditional bank loan. Why would a consumer or small business owner use an online lender even when the interest rate exceeds that of a traditional bank loan? Mr. Reeder. There are a couple of answers. Obviously, once again, small business and consumer are different. But I would say one of the issues in credit in general is just the ability for consumers to shop. Often, consumers don't have the opportunity to compare alternatives, so sometimes that is an issue. The other is that the online channel in general is faster, and so many people find that convenient, something that they are willing to pay for. Ms. Velazquez. So are you concerned about the possible predatory nature of these high-interest online loans? Mr. Reeder. Any credit product that ends with a consumer worse off than where they started is a problem. Ms. Velazquez. Are you concerned that providing loans of this nature fosters an environment similar to the build-up of the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008? Mr. Reeder. I do think that the mortgage crisis is unique in both its scale and its impact. However, I will say that having large amounts of credit that are not regulated from a Federal level in the case of the Truth in Lending Act could be problematic. Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Peterson? Mr. Peterson. Yes, I think that online loans, in particular the online payday lending market, is one of the most abusive and problematic markets in the country. The average interest rates in the online payday loan market are actually higher than they are in the storefront market. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Ms. Standaert and Mr. Reeder, some have noted that online marketplace lending could fail as an industry because these lenders often fail to fully inform borrowers of the terms of the loan and their high interest rates. How can we achieve transparency? How can we make sure that people who are getting money, borrowing money, they know the APR, know the terms of the loan? Would you support a borrower's bill of rights? What provisions would you seek to include? Ms. Standaert. We are most concerned with the underlining terms of the products and whether or not they are properly priced, properly underwritten, and whether or not they comply with State laws. One of the concerning developments in the marketplace industry is their partnership with out-of-State banks to make loans that are at rates higher than what is otherwise allowed by law. Chairman Meeks. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now recognize the gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, for 5 minutes. Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of you so much for being here. About three-fourths of payday borrowers make about $40,000 a year. In my district, that is about 60 percent of the residents essentially being targeted by predatory lenders. Many of my neighbors who are single moms, veterans, and young professionals are burdened by immense student loans, teachers and so forth, all throughout my Wayne County community. And one of the things that we are seeing is that payday loan establishments pop up on the corners of my district, but literally at the doorsteps of communities, and especially communities of color, where there is concentrated poverty. Mr. Sherrill, when you talk about how there was no other option, I just want you to know that I think government is about people and it is about us creating those options that are better than this. But, also, ensuring that there is some sort of regulation and oversight of practices that are ready fed through corporate greed. Corporate greed leads to unjust practices that hurt residents, especially when they are pushed more into poverty. And every time I see my residents kind of stuck, and they have these flashy signs, and come on in, we will take care of you, at the end as soon as the sign--they don't take care of them. They don't help them. Not like credit unions and not like the Reverend's services through, you know, incredible service that you are doing through residents. So it is really important that when we talk about how there are no other options, it is our job to create those options for you. My question, and really, you know, the CFPB has decided to aid in what I call legal robbery by proposing a rule that will drain our communities of their hard-earned savings, instead of developing a system that helps the most vulnerable. And, as you know, so in 2007, the payday lending rule--they prevented that trap that we are talking about, and this is something that I really want to focus on in this committee hearing. We should not be subjecting families to that. Mr. Reeder, what kind of harm could low- and moderate- income consumers, particularly communities, be exposed to if CFPB's current proposal is finalized? Mr. Reeder. In full disclosure, I was at the CFPB, and I was Chief of Staff during a period in which the rulemaking was underway. So I want to be very clear about that. I do think that the rule offers enormous opportunity, probably once in a decade, or maybe once in a generation, to put protections in place that really do weigh access and protection. And that without that, many of us will be back in this room 10 years from now or 20 years from now having the same discussion when many of the opportunities we have in front of us are quite evident, and we spent almost a decade here in Washington working this out. Mr. Peterson here would know better than me, he helped write the rule. But that is something where it would be a great missed opportunity if we were unable to move forward. Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. Mr. Whittaker, you and I have worked on grassroots advocacy on just the amount of what poverty from water shut-offs to ensuring that we have a right to breathe clean air and so forth. One of the things that, you know--we are government, the public, I always feel like is stuck subsidizing the cycle of poverty that is created by practices like that. Does that make sense? So when we don't do our job on this end in preventing folks to be chained, as the Reverend called it, or being held back, and that is what it is by not creating alternative options, we, the public, is subsidizing that poverty. Can you talk a little bit about--because you are from the city I grew up in. You talk about what that looks like from the ground up, because I see it in our school system, I see it in so many ways of how poverty is costing us more money on the other end in trying to provide all these other services. Mr. Whittaker. Thank you, Representative Tlaib. When we divest resources from these communities, we don't support our schools. We close down community banks. We divest in community development, and then we seed these institutions throughout our community, and then we say that this is most affordable and safest option. Well, I would challenge you, Representatives, that if this is the most affordable and safest option, then I would say that it is evidence of decades of failure by the people that we elect to make decisions for us. I agree with you, Representative Tlaib, that it is your job to create these options as this country moves forward. If you look and you see that there is nobody at the wheel, then you take the wheel. I will end this by saying that if you continue to keep the lights off, the roaches will continue to feast on the crumbs of this country that you have created. Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much. And I just would end with this: Close to 80 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. And many of you at this table know that. I have the third poorest congressional district in the country, and one in every two households will face some sort of burden of unexpected financial emergency. And this should not be their last option. We should be, again, working together to provide alternatives and supporting what you are doing, Reverend, in Texas. So I, again, really appreciate it. And I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you. Chairman Meeks. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who is the Chair of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this hearing has been informative, but it has also been painful. And it has been painful because you and I know that most poor people who cannot get a payday loan do not take to the streets. That is highly inflammatory language. It is designed to say to white people that black people who don't get payday loans are likely to engage in criminal conduct. Poor people across the length and breadth of this country suffer in poverty without committing crimes. And to imply that if you can't get a payday loan, you are likely to take to the streets, that is a painful thing to hear. And it is regrettable, to be quite candid with you, that it has been said. So, Mr. Sherrill, since you want to play this game, let me play with you. Did you get your pardon from Donald Trump yet? Mr. Sherrill. Are you asking me a question? Mr. Green. Yes, sir. Mr. Sherrill. I wish. Mr. Green. You did request one, didn't you? Mr. Sherrill. I am working on it. Mr. Green. That is right. You are working on a pardon. And there is a reason for that. How many felonies did you have? Mr. Sherrill. State or Federal? I have both. Mr. Green. This call-- Mr. Sherrill. I don't know. Mr. Green. You determine. Mr. Sherrill. I need to understand. Mr. Green. Let me just share this with you. Ordinarily, I would not do this. But for you to do what you have done-- Mr. Sherrill. What is that? Mr. Green. To imply that people of color--because you happen to be a person of color--to imply that if you can't get a payday loan, you will take to the streets. Mr. Sherrill. That was my circumstance, sir. Mr. Green. That is for you. But don't imply that that is the only option for people. Mr. Sherrill. That is for most of the people that I know. Mr. Green. Well, but not for most of the people in this country. That is what you have done. Mr. Sherrill. I can only speak from my experience, sir. That is why I am here. Mr. Green. Well, you can speak from your experience, but you ought not try to put that experience on other people. Mr. Sherrill. They know it, too. Mr. Green. What you have done, sir, is shameful. Mr. Sherrill. The truth can never be shameful. Mr. Green. The truth is shameful when you exaggerate and you try to pretend that it is more than what it is. Poor people are not criminals just because they are poor. Mr. Sherrill. I didn't say that. Mr. Green. But that is what the implication is. If you can't get the loan, you are going to take to the streets. Mr. Sherrill. That is what I would have done. Mr. Green. Well, that is why you went to jail. Mr. Sherrill. Exactly. Mr. Green. Well, look--don't speak for other poor people. Mr. Sherrill. And I have changed my life, too, sir. Mr. Green. Well, I am glad you did. Let me commend you for that. I commend you for changing your life, and I commend you for getting the pardons. But I would ask you, dear sir, don't use that highly inflammatory language in such a general way. Mr. Sherrill. I am just trying to-- Mr. Green. Well, but what you are doing is causing white people to believe that black people are going to take to the streets if they can't get a payday loan. Mr. Sherrill. Everybody-- Mr. Green. Therefore, we should not regulate payday lending. Mr. Sherrill. Everybody uses this product-- Mr. Green. Excuse me. Let me go on to something else. We don't want to see this invidious discrimination that takes place with reference to these loans. These lenders locate in black communities, they charge black communities more for their loans than they do in other communities. If you walk into a payday lender's shop, one person black and one white, both equally qualified, would you expect them to get the same type of treatment, Mr. Sherrill? Mr. Sherrill. Of course. Mr. Green. Okay. And if one is discriminated against, would you condone that? Mr. Sherrill. Of course not. Mr. Green. All right. Then that is one of the things that we are talking about, how these lenders discriminate and they charge black people more in fees and products than they charge white people. That happens. So if you locate on one side of town and you charge more than you charge on another side of town, that, too, is a problem. I am not saying to you that all payday lenders are loan sharks, but a good many are. They have found a way to feast on the poor, the underprivileged, and people who are trying to make it, who do not take to the streets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. Let me take this opportunity to really thank all of our panel members. I know Mr. Whittaker had to step out for an emergency. But I did want to get into the record--when I listened to all of the witnesses, I think that we have extremely diverse ideas and thought patterns and moving forward to try to figure out how do we remedy this problem. I didn't hear anyone, as I stated in my opening, say that we need to get rid of payday lenders. We say we need to get rid of the predatory payday lenders, those that are doing things that are ripping people off, where you get caught into the never ending debt. And I think that there is a lesson to be learned. And I think this is not whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, that we need to do and make sure that we take care of all consumers. I heard someone talk about how we take care of the military and we cap it at 36 percent. I heard Reverend Haynes say that he thought that might be reasonable in response to a question from Chairwoman Waters. I think that is something that we need to look at and be able to figure out in a bipartisan way. I think, Mr. Sherrill, the fact that you were able to turn your life around is admirable. I also think that Mr. Whittaker is admirable for what he has done with his kids, trying to fight for them and to make a better life, and from his experience, never forgetting who he is, going around the country, fighting for equality and racial justice, organizing people, because it could have been very easy that he could have just given up and said nothing. So I want to thank particularly the two individuals who have had different experiences with payday lending, Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Sherrill. But I would not let this go without Mr. Whittaker being thanked personally also because of who he is, his background, and his children with him, who clearly he wants to make sure that they have a better life. I want to thank the experts. And, Reverend, what you do on a regular basis is important. And for what you have been doing, Ms. Standaert, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Reeder, and Mr. Zuluaga, thank you. It is what makes us who we are. Ending debt traps in the payday and small-dollar credit industry is important. It is ensuring that our constituents have access to affordable--I think that is what we are talking about--nonpredatory financial products, because I believe that is essential. Members of the subcommittee and witnesses today have pointed to several datapoints that confirm what many us know from our daily engagement with constituents and families we represent. The scope of unbanked and underbanked Americans is grave and should concern us all. The growth of banking deserts should worry us all. And the extent of financial vulnerability for the American households is on the top of the minds of this subcommittee, and I know also of the full Financial Services Ccommittee under the leadership of Chairwoman Maxine Waters. Today, in addition to the testimony of the panel of witnesses, we have considered a discussion draft of legislation to set a national usury rate at 36 percent, legislation introduced by Mr. Scott to establish an office for underbanked and unbanked and underserved consumers at the CFPB, and a letter to appropriators, which I led, requesting funding for the Small Dollar Loan Program under Section 1206 of the Dodd- Frank Act. These are important issues for us to consider, ensuring access to fair and affordable financial products and protecting consumers from debt traps is and should be a priority. And I look forward to working with all of you on these critical issues. I also, without objection, will submit for the record letters from the American Financial Services Association and from Mastercard in support of the letter to Appropriations to advance the loan loss reserves, to enable more than 1,000 CDS to participate. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X April 30, 2019 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]