OPPOSE SNOWE-PRYOR #3883

GIVES LENDERS SPECIAL INPUT IN RULES

ADDS DELAYS, RED TAPE, AND LITIGATION

SUPPORT LANDRIEU-DODD-KERRY SIDE BY SIDE TO SNOWE-PRYOR

GIVES SMALL BUSINESSES INPUT WITHOUT UNDERMINING CFPB

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

We write to urge you to VOTE NO on Snowe-Pryor #3883 and VOTE YES on the Landrieu-Dodd-Kerry Side by Side to Snowe-Pryor.  Each would amend Title X of S. 3217, the provisions of the Wall Street Reform bill that establish an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Snowe-Pryor #3883 is well-intentioned but would have the unintended consequence of severely undermining the CFPB. It would add at least two to six months, and possibly multiple years, to the rulemaking process by:

• giving “small business” lenders—firms like payday lenders, check cashing services, and mortgage brokers—the opportunity to provide input on CFPB rules before they are proposed to the public;
• adding more red tape and delays by requiring that a panel of bureaucrats from CFPB, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Small Business Administration review CFPB proposals and write a report on them before they are proposed to the public; and
• creating more opportunities for lenders to tie the CFPB up in court with wasteful litigation.

These extra measures for small lenders are wholly unnecessary because the ordinary rulemaking process gives all members of the public the opportunity to comment on rules—and in fact already requires agencies to give special consideration to small businesses.

Moreover, the delays and burdens created by Snowe-Pryor #3833 would actually hurt small business owners, who depend heavily on credit cards to finance their businesses and would benefit from prompt, effective CFPB rules.

In contrast, the Landrieu-Dodd-Kerry Side by Side responds to small business concerns without hampering the CFPB.  It would give small businesses the same ability for input on rules and the same panel review process (with a more generous deadline of 90 rather than 75 days).  But it would permit the CFPB to begin the formal rulemaking process at the same time, by giving public notice of the proposed rule and seeking public comment, thereby ensuring that small lenders don’t get the first bite at the apple and that rules are not delayed unnecessarily.

I urge you to oppose Snowe-Pryor #3883, which would add layers of bureaucracy, red tape, and wasteful more litigation, harming small businesses and providing no public benefit.  And I urge you support the Landrieu-Dodd-Kerry Side by Side, which would respond to the same small business concerns in nearly identical fashion—without diminishing the CFPB’s ability to write rules efficiently.

Sincerely,

Americans for Financial Reform