First and foremost, let's be clear: NAFCU listened to itsmembers in 2009, and we listen to them now. We fight every day tomake our members and the credit union movement stronger. As noted correctly in Ms. Anderson's column, NAFCU hasalways been steadfast in strongly opposing the CFPB'srulemaking authority over credit unions. At every possibleopportunity, in hearings and in myriad letters to Congress, NAFCUhas been unequivocal in its conviction.

Throughout the legislative negotiations in 2009, NAFCU stronglychallenged the CFPB's authority over credit unions. Specifically, it was at the hearing before the HouseCommittee on Small Business on Sep. 23, 2009, where Price ChoppersEmployees Federal Credit Union President and CEO Dawn Donovan,testifying on behalf of NAFCU, clearly stated our position.Notably, this was the only official hearing where credit uniontrade groups testified before Congress on financial reform,including the creation of the CFPB (earlier proposed as the CFPA).As Donovan pointed out:

“NAFCU does not believe such an agency should be given authorityover regulated federally insured depository institutions, andopposes extending this authority to credit unions.

“As the only not-for-profit institutions that would be subjectto the CFPA, credit unions would stand to get lost in the enormityof the proposed agency. Giving the CFPA the authority toregulate, examine and supervise credit unions, already regulated bythe NCUA, would add an additional regulatory burden and cost tocredit unions.”

Over time in subsequent testimony, we have been unwavering aboutthe CFPB and the dangers of overregulation on creditunions.

As SRP Federal Credit Union President and CEO Ed Templeton, whois also NAFCU's board chair, testified just this year:

“As expected, the breadth and pace of CFPB rulemaking istroublesome, and the unprecedented new compliance burden placed oncredit unions has been immense.

“The impact of this growing compliance burden is evident as thenumber of credit unions continues to decline, dropping by 22% (morethan 1,700) in institutions since 2007. A main reason for thedecline is the increasing cost and complexity of complying with theever-increasing onslaught of regulations. Since the second quarterof 2010, we have lost 1,100 federally insured credit unions, 96% ofwhich were smaller institutions below $100 million in assets. Manysmaller institutions simply cannot keep up with the new regulatorytide and have had to merge out of business or be taken over. Creditunions need regulatory relief, both from Congress and theirregulators.”

Our position was not a politically popular one, nor was it aneasy one to take. NAFCU's board of directors and our lobbying teamstood strong under unbelievable political pressure throughout theDodd-Frank Act negotiations. But then again, NAFCU has never shiedaway from difficult positions. Over the years, NAFCU has alwaystaken positions that are in the best interests of NAFCU members andthe credit union industry. And that will never change.

Ms. Anderson is also correct in noting that the CFPB representsa significant hazard for credit unions – especially when youconsider that not all the Dodd-Frank rules have been implementedyet. According to the Davis Polk report, in the first quarter of2015, 235 (60.3%) of the 390 total required rulemakings have beenfinalized, while 84 (21.5%) rulemaking requirements have not yetbeen proposed. With still so many rules outstanding, it is a ratherominous outlook for credit unions and all the more reason for us tostand fast by our position.

NAFCU continues to believe credit unions should be exempt fromCFPB rulemaking, and we will continue to advance that with fullvigor at every juncture possible because it is the right thing todo. For us, there is little comfort in being right and seeing ourworst predictions regarding the burden of overregulation come tofruition while our industry erodes.

B. Dan Berger is president/CEO of NAFCU. He can be reachedat 703-522-4770 or [email protected].