; and the use and expenditure of funds. These powers, however, are required to be exercised in a manner consistent with carrying out the responsibilities under Title X of Dodd-Frank, which includes complying with the enumerated Federal consumer financial laws under the Title, and satisfying the obligations in other applicable laws. The new politically controlled leadership’s destructive actions have demonstrated the need for legislation to reorient the Director’s discretionary authority to ensure the maintenance of all statutorily mandated policies, functions, and offices of the Consumer Bureau regardless of who is leading the agency. (b) Sense of Congress The following is the sense of Congress: (1) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should meet its statutory purpose in a transparent and accountable manner by operating in a way that is consistent with both the spirit and letter of the law, which dictates that the agency’s mission should fully reflect the agency’s statutory purpose, objectives, and functions. (2) Dodd-Frank underscores that the agency is designed to serve as an independent Federal agency that is primarily focused on the protection of all consumers, without any undue influence of partisan whims and special industry interests, in carrying out its responsibilities and duties. (3) The official name of the agency should be consistent with this mandate and should, figuratively and literally, put Consumers first by reverting to its better-known name as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . (4) The statute establishing the Consumer Bureau has been grossly misinterpreted under the new political leadership, in a manner that is inconsistent with the agency’s statutory purpose, objectives, and functions, with just one example of which is Mr. Mulvaney’s inane suggestion that the statutory requirement for the Director to appear before relevant Congressional Committees to discuss its semi-annual reports could be interpreted as requiring the Director merely to attend a hearing and not answer questions,