it has few checks and balances but broad, largely undefined authority. and here's the main point. it separates safety and soundness regulation from consumer protection regulation. prior to her departure, sheila bair had this to say about this problem. she said banking agencies assessments of risks to consumers are closely linked with and informed by a broader understanding of other risks in financial institutions. placing consume procedure techs policies setting activities in a separate organization apart from existing expertise and examination infrastructure could ultimately result in less effective protections for the consumer. so if we're not able to mandate coordination between the cfpb and prudential regulators through changes in law, my hope is that this semiannual hearing before congress can at least serve for a platform for a discussion of the key concern that so many prudential regulators have on this issue and which we by past experience have learned the hard way is a big problem with bifurcated regulation. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. bacca recommended

they gave you really undefined termed and general authorities and said you need to put some definition to it. you've chosen not to do that by regulation or policy memorandum and you've left this open. whether it's acetone whatever it might be they have no idea what you might come after them. i'd like to work with you to develop cleaner standards. frankly i'd like to get rid of section 112r. i think you have plenty of authority under r & p to decide which chemicals are truly dangerous. >> why don't we have our folks talk about that, if there's specific issues in general. >> i'd be happy to do that. do you reward folks inside your agency for performance, how many finds they get or how successful they are for injunctive value? >> we do track and find injunthive relief. large cases that are difficult, it wouldn't be unusual for a manager, i used to run a program for epa years ago for a manager to note hard work and diligence. not specifically. you're not tied to how much money you bring into the treasury or how many actions you take. >> all that money goes into the treasury, employees don'

they give you these undefined terms, very general authorities and said you need to put some definition to. you chose not to do that. and by regulation or by policy memorandum so you left us wide open. now whether it is acetone or whatever, maybe producers in warehouses may not have any idea what chemicals you, after them for. i would love to work with you to develop cleaner standard. frank gallagher to get rid of that section. i think of plenty of authority under that program to decide which chemicals are truly dangerous. >> why don't we have our folks talk about the? their specific questions or in general. >> i would be happy to do that. do you reward folks inside your agency for performance for how many fines they get or how successful they are obtaining injunctive relief by value? >> we do track fines and injunctive relief. i think large cases that are very difficult it would not be unusual for manager, i used to run an enforcement program in nba many, many years ago for managers to note hard work and diligence. but not specifically, you know, you are not tied to a much money you br