Russell Vought Testifies In Fiery House Financial Services Committee Hearing Led By French Hill

[0:00] Well, good morning. [0:05] Committee on Financial Services will come to order. [0:07] Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess to the committee at any [0:11] time. [0:12] Today's hearing is entitled, The Semiannual Report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial [0:15] Protection. [0:17] Without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous [0:20] materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. [0:23] I now recognize myself for a four-minute opening statement. [0:27] I want to thank Acting Director for Consumer Financial Protection, Russ Volk, for being [0:30] with us today. [0:31] Today's hearing will give us an opportunity to review the CFPB's semiannual report and [0:37] examine the significant changes underway at the CFPB under President Trump and Acting Director [0:43] Volk's leadership. [0:45] The question that we should keep at the forefront of today's conversation is, what can Congress [0:51] do to ensure that the CFPB remains accountable, transparent, and faithful to its mission of [0:58] consumer protection? [1:01] Since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has too often operated as an overreaching [1:07] regulator. [1:09] Partisan priorities have driven burdensome regulations and duplicative supervision that [1:14] fail to account for their impact on the consumer's access to credit and discourage innovation. [1:20] Rather than acting as a fair and transparent regulator, too frequently the CFPB has often allowed ideology [1:28] to drive its policymaking, resulting in overly burdensome regulatory overreach. [1:35] Financial institutions, particularly smaller banks and credit unions, have reported increased [1:40] compliance burdens that make their operations unnecessarily difficult. [1:45] The result was not more protection for consumers, but more paperwork for the community banking industry. [1:55] Fewer choices for working families in product design and restrictions on innovation in everything [2:02] from small-dollar credit access to digital payments. [2:08] Under President Trump's leadership, the CFPB has begun to pull back from being an unaccountable super regulator and [2:15] toward being a more focused agency that focuses on protecting consumers from actual genuine harm. [2:21] The CFPB has stopped regulating by informal guidance and back towards a more disciplined approach [2:29] grounded in clear rules. [2:32] It has moved to stop or undo the worst excesses of prior years, including rules and enforcement [2:38] strategies that punished lawful business models, second-guess market prices, and tried to micromanage [2:46] the terms and products that consumers use every day. [2:51] These administrative actions are an important first step, but in my view, these alone are not enough. [2:59] A future director could reverse these actions in this much-needed direction with the stroke of a pen, [3:05] creating wild swings in policy that are bad for consumers, bad for the financial services industry [3:13] trying to serve those consumers, and then the economy at large. [3:18] That's why this committee is advancing a comprehensive set of CFPB reforms. [3:24] These legislative reforms establish the durable guardrails that would outlast any single director of the agency [3:33] by clarifying the CFPB's statutory authorities, strengthen the due process, restoring transparency, [3:42] promoting a coordinated and risk-based supervision, and preventing regulation by enforcement. [3:48] Congress has the responsibility to create that more durable framework for the CFPB [3:54] and provide the oversight necessary to ensure it stays true to its mission. [3:58] These reforms are designed to ensure adequate consumer protection while also giving financial institutions [4:04] and firms certainty they need to compete, innovate, and expand access to affordable financial products and services. [4:13] I look forward to hearing from Acting Director Vogt today about the real-world consequences of the CFPB's past policies [4:20] and how his work to correct that and set forward this more permanent, durable framework can move forward. [4:28] And so I thank him for being here. [4:30] I yield back, and I recognize the ranking member of our committee, [4:33] Mrs. Waters from California, for a four-minute opening statement. [4:36] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [4:38] Mr. Vogt, for a year and a half, committee Democrats have demanded answers while you have refused to provide them. [4:47] We sent you letters, requested briefings, and repeatedly called for this hearing. [4:54] Instead of being proud of your work, you've been hiding while unlawfully trying, and thankfully failing, [5:02] to dismantle the nation's top consumer watchdog. [5:07] I've never delighted in someone's failure more than I have delighted in yours. [5:13] Next week marks the 15th anniversary of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opening its doors. [5:21] It was created after the 2008 financial crisis, when millions of Americans were scammed out of their homes. [5:31] Congress wanted working families to have someone on their side. [5:36] And until you showed up, the Bureau was on their side. [5:41] CFPB returned $21 billion to millions of consumers, cheated by banks, mortgage services, payday lenders, credit reporting companies, debt collectors, and others. [5:56] So because of CFPB's hardworking public servants, some of them are in the audience. [6:05] The agency had bad actors. [6:08] It held them accountable and got justice for Americans. [6:13] But not under your watch, Mr. Vogt. [6:17] You have directed CFPB to drop enforcement actions, even when they had bad actors offered to compensate the victims. [6:27] You have blocked billions of dollars from being returned to harmed American consumers. [6:34] You've even been terrible for the financial services industry, [6:38] denying, throwing out basic guidance and safeguards industry had asked for. [6:45] And your message to Wall Street is clear. [6:49] You're defunding the police and you're breaking the law to do it. [6:53] Consumer complaints about financial practices have exploded, with more companies filed under your watch than cumulatively filed since 2011. [7:06] That is not a coincidence. [7:08] It's because of you. [7:09] What is astounding is that many of my Republican colleagues continue attacking the CFPB, even as they tell their constituents to ask the agency to resolve this issue. [7:23] To resolve disputes with companies, Republicans secretly know the CFPB works because their constituents have benefited from it, but they're too scared to admit it. [7:36] But Americans know the truth. [7:38] Recent polling shows that 80% of midterm voters support the CFPB. [7:46] If going after consumers were not bad enough at the White House, you've also gone after community development financial institutions. [7:56] I'm talking about CDFIs, and you know what I'm talking about, including hundreds of community banks and credit unions. [8:04] After the courts rejected your blatantly illegal attempt to cancel grants, Congress authorized for nonprofit organization. [8:15] You are again violating the law with your new rule proposal. [8:19] Committee Democrats refused to stand by. [8:21] We've led multiple amicus briefs defending the CFPB and Congress's constitutional authority to create it. [8:31] Helping secure numerous court victories that stopped your efforts to dismantle the agency, starve it of its funding, and carry out unlawful mass violence. [8:43] Those victories have kept the Bureau opening. [8:46] So let me be clear. [8:48] Today is about holding you accountable for ignoring the law. [8:52] And don't look surprised. [8:53] You know what I'm talking about. [8:55] I now recognize the chair of our subcommittee on financial institutions, who's worked hard in this arena. [9:02] Mr. Barr from Kentucky for a one-minute opening statement. [9:06] Director Vogt, thank you for appearing before the committee today, and thank you for the outstanding job you've done as acting director. [9:12] Since its creation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has exceeded its statutory authority, relied on regulation by enforcement, [9:19] and created unnecessary uncertainty for consumers and the financial institutions that serve them. [9:24] Luckily, under your leadership, the CFPB has taken important steps to reduce this regulatory overreach and get back to the core mission of protecting consumers. [9:33] To ensure this change in direction is viable over the long term, Congress must establish durable guardrails that provide regulatory certainty. [9:41] The CFPB reform package accompanying today's hearing reflects an effort to refocus the CFPB on its core statutory mission, [9:48] by improving accountability, increasing transparency, providing greater regulatory certainty, [9:52] and ensuring that enforcement and supervision are exercised in a fair and consistent manner. [9:57] We look forward to discussing those proposals today and identifying additional opportunities to protect consumers [10:03] while promoting a stable, competitive, and innovative financial marketplace. [10:07] Thank you, and I yield back. [10:08] Today, we welcome the testimony of the Honorable Russ Vogt, Acting Director of the CFPB. [10:19] Acting Director Vogt, we thank you for taking time to be with us. [10:22] You'll be recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your written testimony. [10:26] And without objection, your written testimony will be made part of the records. [10:30] I now recognize you for five minutes. [10:33] Chairman Hill, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, [10:37] thank you for the invitation to appear before you today as I reach the end of my tenure at CFPB. [10:43] I am pleased to present the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's semiannual report to Congress, [10:48] as well as to provide you an update on the activities of the Bureau during my tenure. [10:53] After being appointed Acting Director of the Bureau, our team took a look under the hood [10:57] and found an agency that was weaponized, out of control, and had gone far beyond its statutory mandate. [11:03] Under previous administrations, this agency actually imposed huge costs on the American people [11:09] and stifled the innovation and resourcefulness that is necessary for a strong economy. [11:15] Consumers paid the price, literally in the form of higher prices, reduced product offerings, [11:20] increased borrowing expenses, and the misuse of their taxpayer dollars. [11:24] In fact, the Council of Economic Advisers found that the CFPB has cost consumers between $237 to $370 billion since 2011. [11:36] Instead of going down this destructive path, we have steered the Bureau towards operating with humility, [11:41] accountability, and fiscal responsibility. [11:44] Regulation should be justified by the statute, not the whims of ideologues at the Bureau. [11:50] Supervision should be precisely targeted to avoid stifling economic growth and innovation [11:55] and disproportionately increasing compliance costs. [11:59] And enforcement should be based on clear violations of law, [12:02] not in advancing a political agenda outside the accountability and oversight [12:07] from elected officials and the American people. [12:11] The Bureau's express purpose is to implement and enforce federal consumer financial law consistently [12:16] so that all consumers have access to markets [12:19] and that such markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. [12:24] While we have sought to downsize this agency to the maximum extent possible [12:28] and rein in its abuses, we have continued to operate it in accordance with that purpose. [12:34] The Bureau's enforcement actions are now focused on addressing actual harm to consumers [12:39] and ensuring due process. [12:41] President Trump ensured that the Bureau, along with other so-called independent regulatory agencies, [12:46] are accountable to leaders elected by the American people and no longer operate with impunity. [12:52] Recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that no such independent agencies exist in slaughter. [12:57] The Bureau's regulatory actions are no longer developed in isolation, [13:02] and the rest of the government works to improve its proposals through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. [13:08] I have also reoriented our internal processes in supervision. [13:12] The Bureau focuses its resources on pressing threats to consumers [13:16] and in the areas that are clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. [13:20] In the past, the supervision program pushed well past the limits of statutory authority [13:26] under the guise of consumer protection. [13:28] The Bureau also now avoids duplication of supervision by other regulators. [13:33] Supervision is conducted with transparency and respect, [13:37] and our examiners announce it through the Humility Pledge [13:40] that they read at the beginning of all examinations. [13:43] Enforcement is also guided by a new set of principles [13:47] so that the CFPB focuses on addressing actual harms to consumers, [13:51] ensuring due process and seeking collaboration when appropriate. [13:55] Under President Trump, there has been a paradigm shift in the way [13:58] that the CFPB regulates, supervises and enforces the law as required by Dodd-Frank. [14:06] And though we have improved a great deal about how to operate, [14:09] the Bureau remains structurally defective, [14:11] and I do not believe it should exist in its current form. [14:14] I have been committed to running it in a responsible manner [14:17] and addressing real harms instead of remaking financial markets [14:21] in service of a political agenda. [14:23] If confirmed, I know that President Trump's nominee, Brian Johnson, [14:26] will do a great job in continuing to steer CFPB in an appropriate manner. [14:32] Ultimately, however, CFPB must be subject to Congress's most basic function, [14:37] the appropriations process, to ensure accountability [14:40] and legitimize an otherwise unserious agency. [14:43] Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [14:46] Thank you, Director. [14:48] We'll now turn to member questions, and given our limited time today, [14:51] I'm going to strictly enforce the five-minute rule. [14:53] I hope everybody will help achieve that. [14:56] I now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning. [15:00] The CFPB's core mission is to protect consumers, [15:03] but there are serious questions about whether some actions [15:06] under the previous administrations advance the goal, that goal, [15:10] or instead impose costs ultimately harmed consumers. [15:15] The Council of Economic Advisers estimated that since 2011, [15:20] the CFPB policies have cost consumers between $237 and $369 billion [15:27] through higher borrowing costs, reduced credit availability, [15:32] and other compliance-related expenses that have been passed on in the financial system. [15:37] So my first question, Acting Director, is how did the prior regulatory approach [15:43] negatively impact consumers in practice, and why is it necessary to move quickly [15:49] to unwind that approach and recalibrate directly to consumer benefit? [15:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's an important note to remind this committee [16:01] and the country of the impact of the last 15 years of the CFPB before we came into office, [16:07] with nearly $360 billion in added consumer costs because of the work of the CFPB. [16:14] And I hear often the $21 billion figure that is often cited by the defenders, [16:21] and then you put it in comparison to the $370 billion, and it's quite stark. [16:26] And much of that is on the regulatory front, but it's also by regulating through enforcement [16:32] and to go beyond a statutory or regulatory component and to expand [16:38] and to use the other tools that CFPB has to effectively regulate [16:43] by sending a very serious signal to those who are in a particular line of work. [16:49] But there has been a concern that we've had with the ability to innovate, [16:57] to have financial products that meet real needs that real people have, [17:02] and to have innovation in those marketplaces. [17:05] And unfortunately, CFPB has not been a part of providing such a landscape. [17:09] I appreciate that answer. And one thing that I've seen as a former community bank [17:15] chief executive in the environment, I can remember distinctly in 2009, [17:19] before Dodd-Frank was enacted, I participated in a roundtable in Little Rock [17:25] with then assistant to the president, Elizabeth Warren, working for President Obama, [17:30] outlining her vision for what a CFPB would do. [17:34] And her principal mission was actually consolidating the consumer rulebook, [17:40] making it clear, making it easier for consumers, and reducing regulatory burden [17:45] on the financial services industry, both I would say bank and non-bank, [17:51] was her pitch in that roundtable that I listened to. [17:55] But what we've seen in practice over the 15 years has been, it seems to me, [18:00] the reverse, which is duplicative nature. [18:04] For example, members of Congress at the time of Dodd-Frank said they, [18:07] I think they thought they were assigning CFPB to look at big banks at the time over $10 billion. [18:13] But when you talk to bankers now and non-banks, [18:16] they show a much more heavy compliance burden that's been pushed down and that is duplicative. [18:22] Consistent with that, the CFPB has tried to move towards fewer exams and more targeting. [18:28] Has that been your approach and you've been focused on those institutions over $10 billion, for example? [18:33] Talk about that for a minute. [18:34] Well, we've had a very active supervision agenda, [18:37] and many people have not noticed that who are supporters of the agency in general. [18:45] We have scaled certain aspects of it down that were largely junkets. [18:49] So they had a culture of sending eight examiners for eight hours a day, for eight weeks, [18:58] to visit on the job, on the scene, each of these financial institutions. [19:07] We've taken the approach that we can do far more by having it remote, [19:13] by ensuring that if we need to convene, we will convene. [19:18] But we have made it so that it is much more rational. [19:22] We'll do about 70 exams this year. [19:24] But again, the 70 exams is not something that it is. [19:29] There's a far greater amount of work that's being done in behind the scenes in the supervision department. [19:34] So we have tried to rationalize it. [19:37] We've tried to bring humility to it. [19:40] We would dismiss cases that we thought had no basis in statute. [19:44] And then we would find that the career individuals were treating those entities with disrespect, [19:51] with roughness, with arbitrary deadlines. [19:54] And it's one of the reasons we put into place the pledge to make sure that our employees were operating with respect. [20:01] My time has expired. [20:02] Thank you. [20:03] And I now ask the ranking member to address her questions. [20:07] You have five minutes. [20:08] Ranking member, thank you. [20:09] Director Boat. [20:16] Let's turn to a problematic period of your tenure. [20:21] Last February, at least three, at least three of Elon Musk's employees from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, [20:32] Doge, entered the CFPB headquarters and requested access to sensitive CFPB headquarters and requested access to sensitive CFPB information, [20:47] including internal staff records, competitive industry data, and personally identifiable consumer information. [20:57] The release of this data to inexperienced, untrained, and unvetted individuals raises serious concerns about its impact on law enforcement, [21:08] consumer privacy, and the protection of confidential supervisory information. [21:14] Furthermore, the trillionaire Elon Musk, who led Doge, may have gained access to this data and could use it to inform his own payment app and other companies. [21:28] I asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate, but you stonewalled them, too. [21:34] However, they found that other agencies, like Treasury, did not use safeguards to prevent Doge employees transmitting the sensitive data outside of the agency. [21:48] A whistleblower also noted that a Doge team inappropriately handled sensitive data at the National Labor Relations Board [21:58] and that Doge's records were destroyed before investigators could audit them. [22:04] So, direct to vote, because you never responded to a letter that I, Senator Warren and nearly 200 members of Congress, sent you last year. [22:13] Tell me, simply, yes or no? [22:17] Do you even know the extent, the extent of the data held by the CFPB that Elon Musk and anyone else associated with Doge had access to? [22:31] Do you have a record of all the data that was accessed? [22:34] Have you done any investigation into whether CFPB's data is secure? [22:40] Yes or no? [22:42] Congressman, we had a Department of Government Efficiency. [22:44] Yes or no? [22:45] It's something we were very proud of as an administration. [22:47] Yes or no? [22:48] Reclaiming my time. [22:52] No, you don't know. [22:53] No, direct to vote. [22:55] Doge had unfettered access to all information held by CFPB and it was given administrative privileges that allowed Doge employees to delete all records of what they did. [23:12] So, let me ask you again, did anyone from Doge unlawfully share this data with third parties? [23:21] Have any records and account access about Doge's work at the CFPB been deleted? [23:29] Yes or no? [23:30] The Department of Government Efficiency was part of the administration. [23:34] So, when they came on board. [23:35] Yes or no? [23:36] Along with us. [23:37] Yes or no? [23:38] At the CFPB. [23:39] Yes or no? [23:40] They were a part of getting a handle from the agency. [23:41] Reclaiming my time. [23:42] The gentleman refuses to answer. [23:45] Just last May, the CFPB under your leadership deleted its institutional records from the agency's [23:54] website. [23:55] This includes press releases, consumer advisories, supervisory highlights, reports and enforcement [24:02] action, summaries from prior administrations and translations into other languages also [24:09] were disabled. [24:10] Are you aware that a district court ordered you and CFPB to maintain and not delete, destroy, [24:19] remove or impair any agency data? [24:22] Yes or no? [24:23] Your question is totally inaccurate. [24:26] Yes or no? [24:27] Your question is inaccurate. [24:28] Yes or no? [24:29] They did not remove those documents. [24:30] Reclaiming my time. [24:31] It did. [24:32] And your last action to hide the truth is in clear violation of the court injunction. [24:38] Direct to vote. [24:39] You should preserve all of your emails, text messages and other forms of communication with [24:46] respect to your CFPB work while you may also wish to be done. [24:50] If a new director is confirmed to the CFPB. [24:53] Let me be clear. [24:54] You are not done with we are not done with you. [24:57] And so despite your boss calling in a hoax, affordability is a big problem for consumers. [25:05] Groceries and gas cost much more today than when Trump came into office. [25:10] In fact, one in 10 families have to skip a meal just to get by. [25:15] Consumers are upset. [25:16] Time is expired. [25:17] The chair recognizes the vice chairman for the full committee, Mr. Heisgen of Michigan, [25:23] for five minutes. [25:24] Thank you, director Vogt. [25:25] I'm going to move quickly. [25:26] I'm fascinated by your humility pledge. [25:29] I would say other than Kathy Kraninger, humility is not exactly a word associated with [25:35] the director of the CFPB or frankly its creator. [25:39] I do think, though, that Brian Johnson would be an extension of this new spirit. [25:44] I'm going to give you a few seconds, though, to respond to the ranking member who would not [25:47] allow you to finish your sentence. [25:48] When you have a new administration, I thank you, Congressman. [25:51] When you have a new administration, they put the previous documents and press releases [25:56] into an archived version of the website. [25:59] That is exactly what we have done. [26:01] It can be found on the website. [26:03] It is all there. [26:04] If people want to go back and look at what we think are flawed guidance documents from [26:09] the Chopra directorship, it's all there under archive. [26:12] But it is not going to be represented as our administration's view with regard to what [26:17] the policies and rules and regulations are of this administration. [26:21] Okay. [26:22] I'm going to skip my setup and just get right to my question. [26:24] How can the CFPB ensure it meets the statutory objective of protecting consumers from genuine [26:30] misconduct while also ensuring that its supervisory and enforcement activities do not unnecessarily [26:36] discourage responsible lending to the small businesses that drive local economies? [26:41] You talked about the $360 billion in regulatory costs to consumers. [26:45] We know that an unclear direction simply just causes people to say no on their lending. [26:55] Well, I think we took a long time to work on our supervisory and enforcement guidelines. [26:59] We're very proud of them. [27:01] It focuses on actual victims, identifiable harm that has material and measurable damages. [27:08] Yeah, but wouldn't the fishing expeditions of Rohit Chopra do the same thing? [27:11] Yes. [27:12] And so my view would be to turn those into law. [27:15] And so everything that we've done, turn it into statutory requirements that build on the work that we've done. [27:22] All right. [27:24] An effective regulatory system should motivate entities to detect and fix issues, as you've been talking about. [27:29] And while working with regulators to prevent consumer harm, institutions are more likely to invest in compliance and even, frankly, self-report violations if cooperation is rewarded and not penalized. [27:42] You talked a little bit about that. [27:44] Some stakeholders have argued that CFPB's approach lacks incentives for self-reporting, which may actually reduce transparency and slow corrective actions. [27:54] And I think, frankly, major reforms are needed. [27:57] For that reason, I've introduced the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Commission Act to reform the CFPB structure from a single director to a bipartisan commission of five members, making it more accountable, consistent, transparent and trustworthy. [28:12] And frankly, this has been discussed for many, many years. [28:15] It was a good idea then. [28:16] It's a good idea now, especially if one is concerned with the lack of oversight that we just heard from from the ranking member. [28:23] So in the meantime, how is the CFPB working to encourage a supervisory culture that rewards self-identification, self-correction and good faith cooperation? [28:32] Well, one of the things that we do is we reach out early and often if we see something that's either predominant in the customer complaint portal or if we are seeing in the news. [28:41] We reached out to built when we felt that they were not making payments on behalf of the as a new credit card. [28:49] We we ensured that they were going to then work to fix the problem. [28:53] They were working to fix the problem. [28:55] And there's examples like that. [28:56] Are there some additional statutory reforms that you'd like to see that could further incentivize that? [29:01] Well, again, I think to the farthest extent possible, if you can write into the law, the notion that we're after self-reporting, we're after remediation and reconciliation, that that is better than waiting on enforcement for many, many years that that may not occur. [29:19] That is a much better way of operating than to just assume that it's as adversarial as it has been. [29:27] We've got a minute here. [29:30] Given the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on Loper Bright, how is the CFPB approaching the exercise of its statutory authority? [29:39] I mean, that decision was very important and reminder that major policy decisions should and frankly must come from Congress, not just through not just through expansive agency interpretations. [29:50] Well, it's obviously a very critical to our entire regulatory agenda as an administration. [29:55] We don't want to go beyond the authority that you've given us. [29:59] And that's one of the reasons why I think it's so important that you all are starting the hearing, the legislative process on reforms so that you can further spell out what should be a larger participant. [30:12] For example, those are the types of things that I think CFPB has way too much authority with regard to our ability to look at the law. [30:19] Clarity. [30:20] I think there needs to be clarity, transparency and understanding and predictability. [30:24] That's what you need to be doing now. [30:25] Yield back. [30:26] The gentleman yields back. [30:27] The chair recognizes the ranking member of our House Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez of New York. [30:32] Four or five minutes. [30:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [30:34] Director Vogue, last month the CFPB issued a statement suggesting creditors consider immigration status as a negative factor in an individual's ability to repay. [30:49] It has been reported that the banking industry has expressed concerns about the burden of vetting customers for immigration status. [30:59] Did the CFPB consult with creditors before issuing this statement? [31:04] Yes or no? [31:05] No, we have worked with them throughout the process. [31:09] OK, your answer is no. [31:10] We are looking at the law as we see it and your answer is no. [31:14] By the way, you know, Director Chopra, when he issued the 1071 section, 1071 rule, he held more than 100 outreach meetings with financial institutions, trade association, community groups, and so on. [31:33] And at the end, the members of the other side in this committee continue to criticize the implication and the impact that it will have on bankers, on creditors, but not this time. [31:48] The laws. [31:50] So do you think? [31:54] Yes. [31:56] How did CFPB consult with creditors? [32:01] Well, it's interesting. [32:03] The 1071. [32:04] No, no. [32:05] I don't want to hear about 1071. [32:07] We discussed it here too many times. [32:10] Just answer my question. [32:12] How many meetings did you hold with creditors? [32:16] We reached out to the financials. [32:18] How many times? [32:19] I don't have that at my fingers, but suffice it to say, we do our work. [32:24] We take input, but we're going to regulate based on what the law is. [32:29] And that's what we're doing with the ability to pay with regard to illegal immigrants. [32:32] Okay. [32:33] What is the estimated cost of implementing this rule for the creditors? [32:38] There is not a rule out there that has gone through a cost-benefit analysis. [32:42] I know. [32:43] I know. [32:44] I'm going to get to that in a moment. [32:45] Because it's already the law. [32:46] It's already the law. [32:47] It's already the standard. [32:48] And we were simply overriding the policy guidance from the previous director that conflicted with the statute. [32:55] The loss of unemployment situation is significantly more likely to be a risk to a credit application than the risk of being an unauthorized immigrant. [33:11] Do you think creditors should include whether an ICE agent that has shot an unarmed civilian on the street and therefore is likely to be charged with murder and the loss of employment as a factor in determining whether they have the ability to repay? [33:37] We believe that illegal immigration is a serious problem in this country. [33:40] I understand it's not a bipartisan view. [33:41] I'm asking you if an ICE agent shot an unarmed civilian if that should be counted as a determining factor of having the ability to repay? [33:58] Yes, we have said that as a matter of our guidance that it is an important factor in the ability to repay if you are no longer in this country because of the illegal steps that you took to get into this country. [34:11] Reclaim me my time, Mr. Chairman. [34:13] I am making an outrageous statement to make the point that the CSPB statement on consideration of immigration status as a negative factor in an individual's ability to repay. [34:29] It's equally outrageous and insulting. [34:34] Director Bowen vote. [34:37] The statement you put out is not guidance nor is the rule. [34:42] And I just heard the chairman when he was making his opening remark saying that the CSPB is moving away from informal guidance unless you want to make a point. [34:57] Maybe instructed by Stephen Miller. [35:01] So the statement at the end even clarified that this statement does not have the force or effect of law. [35:12] It has no legally binding effect. [35:15] I found it nothing more than another racist trope coming from this administration that seeks to threaten creditors and intimidate lenders and borrowers alike. [35:29] You know what is the point? [35:31] Cruelty. [35:33] I yield back. [35:38] General woman's time has expired. [35:39] The chair recognizes the chair of our task force on monetary policy. [35:43] Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. [35:44] You're recognized for five minutes. [35:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [35:46] And thank you for being here, director. [35:48] I know many in this committee are heartened by your leadership at the bureau and the progress that we've made, particularly after your precedent focused, your predecessor focused on the bureau of regulation by enforcement and advisory opinions rather than notice and comment or robust public feedback. [36:05] Can you explain what the bureau is doing to permanently rescind some of the harmful rules of the past administration? [36:11] Well, there's not a lot that we can do on a permanent basis without your help. [36:16] And so I think that's a really important aspect of the humility that we're trying to bring to the conversation is we need Congress, not unlike what you did with the size of the agency to come along and restrict our authorities. [36:30] But we have changed the culture. [36:33] We are dramatically lower. [36:34] We're about half of what we were when we came into into office. [36:39] And so we are we are taking cultural seriously so that there is nothing that has to swing back as a seesaw by virtue of it not being done right the first time. [36:50] Continue with that line of thought. [36:52] What sometimes I hear often from the financial services industry is the need for durable and consistent regulations to avoid dramatic policy shifts from year to year. [37:01] Can you describe how the committee could partner with you to support those efforts and ensure progress progress that your leadership has made is truly lasting? [37:10] Well, I think my theme here. [37:12] I want to fix the problem. [37:13] I mean, we put forward two big deregulatory initiatives that we hopefully are the type of things that are so credible and we believe they are that they last. [37:22] There's obviously jump balls within a statutory framework. [37:27] And where there are those jump balls of discretion, that is where the most danger is. [37:32] Obviously, we would have concerns with the definition of abusiveness under UDAP. [37:37] That would be an example where I think that you would want to codify a better definition of it. [37:42] I think you'd want to codify what is larger, larger participant. [37:46] I think you'd want to codify what consumer risk that is so significant that the CFPB should extend its authority. [37:54] And so I would remove those discretionary jump balls as much as possible. [37:58] Director, on a similar topic, past abuses have made clear the need for increased congressional accountability and oversight over the bureau's actions. [38:05] What structural forms would be helpful to ensure that in the future the bureau stays within its statutory mandate and is not moving beyond congressional intent? [38:15] I think the biggest thing that you can do is put the agency under the appropriations process. [38:22] The degree to which it doesn't have to come to Congress and have its budget approved and dispensed to is a massive, massive problem. [38:34] And I think it's the number one thing that I would I would point the committee to. [38:38] The bill we've noticed today would include an adjustment to the supervision threshold to twenty one billion dollars to account for economic growth. [38:47] What would that adjustment mean for the bureau's ability to focus its supervisory function on larger institutions? [38:53] I think it would help for sure. [38:56] I think it would align with the risk basis of which we endeavor our super supervision and enforcement activities. [39:05] And so I think it's the kind of common sense reform that would would hopefully ride on a reform bill. [39:12] Thank you, director, for being here. [39:13] And thank you, chairman, for having this hearing. [39:15] I yield back. [39:16] The gentleman from Oklahoma yields back. [39:19] The chair now recognizes the ranking member of our subcommittee on capital markets. [39:22] Mr. Sherman from California for five minutes. [39:24] It's incredibly refreshing to have someone from the Trump administration come here and talk about the role of Congress and congressional oversight. [39:32] In so many other areas, this administration just flouts the law. [39:39] The greatest, of course, being the War Powers Act. [39:43] So in this one narrow area, we've got an administration that believes Congress should exist. [39:50] And that is indeed refreshing. [39:52] I want to focus on an issue I think is of concern to both sides of the aisle. [39:59] And that is these, quote, credit report repair agencies. [40:04] They have a tendency to overwhelm your agency with bot created complaints by the literally millions. [40:12] In 2024, your agency announced, of course, under prior administration, that it distributed 1.8 billion to dollars to 4.3 million consumers hurt by credit repair scams. [40:26] What actions have you taken in your tenure to track down on these companies and also to prevent them from overwhelming your website? [40:35] Well, I thank you for the question. [40:37] We have tried to build on some of the reforms that were previously put into place. [40:42] For instance, creating an account with a password, having a verified email. [40:47] We've taken the next step of verifying a mobile phone number. [40:50] We've taken the next step of making sure that you can't have the same phone number for multiple different individuals. [40:59] And we've tried to remind people that they have to go to the credit reporting agency first. [41:05] They have 30 days. [41:06] They can get an extension for another 15 days. [41:08] But that's the basis of the process. [41:10] And hopefully that will be a major demand signal to the industry. [41:15] Thank you. [41:16] I need to move on. [41:17] Mr. Vaud, wearing your other hats, and you've worn many in this administration, [41:22] you've presided over the cuts to our foreign aid program that will result in 3 million deaths during this administration, [41:33] mostly from health and not providing malaria and AIDS treatments and tuberculosis treatments, also food aid. [41:43] We see a defunding of the Council of Inspectors General on integrity and efficiency. [41:49] And we've seen illegal cuts where you just freeze the money for Alzheimer's research, [41:57] women's health, cancer research, et cetera. [42:01] Now, in your opening statement, you tell us that I think you come up with a figure as high as $370 billion that the CFPB has imposed in costs to consumers. [42:15] That's really just the banks saying, oh, my God, we don't like the CFPB, [42:21] and we'll attribute all of our price increases to their existence. [42:27] The Council of Economic Advisors does nothing to prove that these are real dollars, not imaginary dollars. [42:34] In contrast, as you know, the CFPB prior to you had returned $21 billion to consumers. [42:44] Add five, correct, $21 billion, yeah, back to consumers and monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debt. [42:53] And what's more important, as long as your testimony is based on estimates, [43:01] it must be tens or hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that the CFPB has saved consumers by deterring fraud, by deterring abusive practices. [43:16] You know, there were some who wanted to defund the police. [43:22] They were unsuccessful, but they would point to, well, how much did the police actually recover from the victims of crime? [43:33] How many wallets were returned? [43:35] That isn't the issue. [43:36] If you're going to defund the police, you look at what crimes are prevented and deterred. [43:44] Now, the only person successful in defunding the police, sir, is you. [43:50] You've defunded the police that protect us from crime in the suites while railing against crime in the streets. [44:01] And the fact is, Americans need to be protected from both. [44:06] You have slashed your agency without any input from Congress. [44:12] Congress envisioned, because we were here, we wrote this bill, a robust agency. [44:18] You've cut it by a third. [44:20] You're in the process of trying to cut it by more than a third. [44:23] You've cut enforcement by 80 percent. [44:25] The gentleman's time has expired, and I invite the director to respond to that question in writing. [44:30] Thank you. [44:31] The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, for five minutes. [44:35] Thank you very much, Chairman. [44:36] Director, welcome. [44:37] I, in fact, find your leadership refreshing. [44:43] I find your leadership balanced. [44:45] I find your leadership addressing the overregulation, overpowering by government. [44:52] You've brought up several examples of things that happen when oversight, when you come into banks or you come into areas about their oversight. [45:04] I want to talk with you about some of the civil money penalties that have really taken place. [45:13] It happened more before you got there. [45:15] Talk to me about these civil penalties and the use of those civil penalties. [45:20] I've been looking on the website about how the CFPB does have discretion in these areas. [45:27] What is this? [45:29] Is it a weapon? [45:30] Is it there to stop bad behavior? [45:33] Is it there to create something new? [45:39] And, correspondingly, once those penalties were made, money, civil penalties, was action taken that changed results or procedures? [45:51] One of the tools, Congressman, that CFPB has is administrative consent orders, which is essentially a way that CFPB can sue and settle over and over with entities and can bring in additional contributions into the civil penalty fund, which has a use. [46:10] We had at least one or two examples where a company that had done wrongdoing that we thought was valid did not have any money left. [46:20] And we put money out from the civil penalty fund so we could provide redress to consumers. [46:25] But the extent to which the combination of the fund and the sue and settle authorities that CFPB has is one of those things that I would take a look at if I was in Congress. [46:36] So, in other words, you believe that there may be a better balance if we look at that and see where we actually direct the CFPB on that? [46:47] I do. [46:48] Okay. [46:49] Well, I think it's important for us to—and you—to look at overregulation. [46:56] The—our friends on the other side didn't want to talk about 1071. [47:01] 1071 is something that we became aware of early on. [47:06] The banking industry became aware of it. [47:11] It took what was originally about 14 or 15 pages of regulation and moved it to 1,000 pages. [47:19] It required banks or any lenders where they were dealing with minorities to reassess and to ask all sorts of questions. [47:29] I found that what it did is it, by and large, meant that banks did not want to offer loans anymore because of the extensive and rigorous process that it required, [47:39] rather than some review stating the facts about where they believed there may be frailties in the marketplace. [47:47] I know that you have now changed those rules and regulations. [47:51] Have you had a chance to do any evaluation where you did a look back compared to what might be the current results that are happening, [48:01] that making it better for banks, financial institutions to lend to minority or other types of businesses or people? [48:09] Thank you, Congressman. [48:10] When the rule went through a LIRA review, which is obviously a new feature under this administration, [48:15] it had a cost-benefit analysis. [48:17] The benefits, $2 billion, and lower regulatory costs were obviously substantial. [48:23] It's too soon to be able to see the on-the-ground impact. [48:27] But I heard the same thing that you did with regard to the potential that we'd have fewer lending as a result of it. [48:35] And just to put a fine point on the statutory basis for it, the statute required 13 data fields. [48:41] The Chopra directorship put forward a rule that had in the neighborhood of 80-plus data fields. [48:48] We came up with a rule that did 16, and we believe for good reasons because those extra three were tied into the underlying 13. [48:57] Right. And as a matter of fact, it would have put the person who was asking the loan, put them in jeopardy also of how they complied. [49:06] Another fact is 29 million hours of paperwork as a result of the last 15 years of CFPB. [49:17] The 1071 rule that Chopra had done would have added much more paperwork, many more employees that these entities would have to do to do that paperwork. [49:26] Well, it came directly from the Texas Bankers Association, who talked with all the members up here, and they felt like it was not wise. [49:33] You have made it more reasonable. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. [49:37] The gentleman yields back. [49:38] I want to recognize the ranking member of our House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Meeks of New York, for five minutes. [49:43] Thank you. [49:45] Mr. Volk, you've never been a member of Congress, have you? [49:47] I have not. [49:48] And you were not a member of Congress at the time that Congress created the CFPB, were you? [49:53] I was not. [49:54] And Congress then made and gave CFPB a statutory responsibility to protect consumers, [50:03] from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial practices. [50:08] So I don't know if you know that, but I was here when it was created. [50:12] That's the congressional mandate. [50:14] Now, you took an oath, I guess, as acting because you had not been or ever been confirmed to be the director. [50:23] Is that correct? [50:24] I have not. [50:25] And I'm looking forward to being up with my time. [50:27] I'm looking forward to that, too. [50:30] But you took an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws that Congress enacted. [50:41] Is that not correct? [50:42] And we've done that. [50:43] Not that you've enacted, but that Congress have enacted. [50:47] And in your testimony, you've said, we've sought to downscale this agency to the maximum extent possible. [50:57] And I don't quote. [50:58] Then you said you don't believe that the CFPB should exist in its current form, which is the form of which Congress created, not you, or the Dodd-Frank Act, which is still the law. [51:14] You may not like it, but it is what Congress set forth. [51:19] Congress has never relieved the Bureau of its statutory responsibilities. [51:28] So, Mr. Vogt, let me, the first thing is your job isn't to run on a temporary basis, as you have, the CFPB as you wish. [51:40] It is as the Congress has set out statutorily for it to be done. [51:46] Your job is to be faithful to administer the CFPB that Congress created. [51:54] But that's not what you've done, sir. [51:57] You've accused the CFPB of, and I quote, advancing a radical political agenda. [52:04] But, Mr. Vogt, aren't you the creator of Project 2026? [52:13] And you're trying to put that in place here, which is a radical political agenda? [52:19] Aren't you doing the exact same things? [52:22] That's what you're doing? [52:23] You are putting forward Project 2026, a radical political agenda, and trying to utilize it in the CFPB, which is not authorized by the United States Congress? [52:36] Sir, under your leadership, the CFPB has dropped enforcement actions, cut its workforce, and made major operational changes? [52:48] Mr. Vogt, your lawyers, and you've done this being a non-confirmed person, and your lawyers have even argued in court that major decisions about the Bureau's workforce and operations should wait, shouldn't be on you temporarily, but your lawyers said should wait for a Senate-confirmed director because they carry greater legitimacy? [53:16] I mean, your lawyers are actually arguing that you don't have that legitimacy. [53:21] That's their case. [53:22] That's what they said in court. [53:24] It says it's not legitimate when they are made by someone not confirmed by the Senate. [53:33] So, your conduct, sir, is directly inconsistent with the position of your own lawyers or what they took in court. [53:44] So, you described the CFPB as an unserious agency in your testimony. [53:52] Do you believe that what you and Elon Musk did with Doge at the CFPB reflected seriousness? [54:02] So, that was unserious and not what the American people would expect from their government. [54:10] Congress never authorized Doge to carry out the CFPB's mission. [54:16] Congress never gave Doge authority over consumer financial protection. [54:22] Yet, under your watch, sir, Doge gained access to some of the CFPB's most sensitive consumer and supervisory information that I call that unserious and that reckless, sir. [54:37] Your testimony mentioned several things. [54:39] I'm out of time. [54:40] But, sir, I'm glad you're leaving. [54:44] I yield back. [54:45] The gentleman yields back. [54:46] The chair now recognizes the chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, Mr. Barr of Kentucky, for five minutes. [54:52] Director Vogt, let me offer an alternative perspective from my friend, the gentleman from New York. [54:58] I wasn't a member when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act. [55:02] Candidly, everyone knows I would have voted against the Dodd-Frank Act had I been here at the time. [55:06] But, I am a member of Congress today. [55:09] And the fact of the matter is, you're not disregarding the statute. [55:14] The statute gave you, as the acting director and any director, enormous, enormous power, unaccountable from Congress. [55:22] That was the precise design of the Dodd-Frank law in creating this bureau. [55:29] And so, to the extent my friend from New York has a problem with you exercising the enormous discretion that Congress conferred upon you. [55:39] It's his fault. [55:40] It's the fault of the authors of the Dodd-Frank law. [55:43] That is precisely why we have attached to this hearing a reform package that should be bipartisan. [55:50] If anyone wants to provide accountability to the bureau, if anyone wants to rein in your discretion that you have exercised lawfully, [56:01] it should be the Congress on a bipartisan basis. [56:04] So, whether it's Richard Cordray or Cathy Kraninger or Chopra or you, sir, we have given to you, [56:12] my predecessors have given to you in the Dodd-Frank law all the powers that you are now exercising. [56:17] So, if my friends on the other side of the aisle have anyone to blame for the actions that you have taken, [56:23] they need to look in the mirror because they have given you the power that you have exercised here today. [56:30] That is precisely why we have offered this reform package today. [56:36] Director Vogt, over the years, many stakeholders have expressed concern that the CFPB's civil investigative demand authority [56:42] has been exercised with limited transparency and few meaningful procedural safeguards, [56:47] making it difficult for recipients to understand the basis for an investigation [56:52] or to challenge overly broad requests before incurring significant costs. [56:56] Those concerns undermine confidence in what should be a fair and objective investigative process. [57:01] It's why I introduced H.R. 1653, which would strengthen the procedural protection surrounding the CFPB's use of civil investigative demands, [57:10] while preserving the bureau's ability to investigate legitimate misconduct. [57:14] Could you discuss how the CID process was abused under your predecessor [57:19] and how greater transparency and due process in the bureau's CID process can strengthen both public confidence in the agency [57:26] and the effectiveness of enforcement efforts? [57:28] Thank you, Congressman. [57:29] I mean, when you have a financial regulatory entity that views themself as a prosecutor and advocate, [57:36] and they have the tools of the civil investigative demands to be able to open up and get any information they want [57:42] and go on fact-finding missions, which is what the supervision aspects of the job often look like, [57:49] you have great opportunities for mischief. [57:55] And I think your bill is the kind of thing that needs to be done to bind the agency. [58:00] And rarely do you have an agency head that comes to you and says, [58:03] please bind our agency in as many ways as you possibly can because of the degree to which it has acted abnormally. [58:12] Well, under your predecessor, the CID process was a fishing expedition. [58:16] There was no requirement that they had to actually identify suspected illegal conduct. [58:21] They just went in and they harassed law-abiding American companies and bankrupted them with this Gestapo tactics. [58:28] That's why we need my bill and to reform CID and put some modicum of due process into the system. [58:33] I invite my friend from New York to consider my legislation that would subject the bureau to the congressional appropriations process. [58:43] To the extent he thinks you're doing a bad job. [58:46] Again, it's the authors of the Dodd-Frank's law fault because they put you beyond the congressional appropriations process. [58:54] Could you discuss how bringing the CFPB into the annual appropriations process would strengthen the bureau's stewardship of taxpayer resources, [59:01] improve accountability to Congress, and frankly, give my friend, the gentleman from New York, more authority over you? [59:08] It's the most important reform that you can do full stop. [59:12] The extent to which an agency has to come to Congress and justify the activities that it does in conjunction with the resources that it is requesting from the appropriations process, [59:23] I do not believe, I do not understand why Congress would ever provide funding to an agency outside of that process. [59:31] And so it has led to, I think, a cavalier attitude and a swagger on behalf of the CFPB that is ultimately what we've been trying to wind down. [59:41] Well, I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are disappointed in your leadership. [59:45] I was disappointed with your predecessor's leadership. [59:48] If we care about making this agency accountable and less partisan, [59:52] let's join together in a bipartisan manner and reclaim the power of the first over this agency. [59:58] I yield back. [59:59] The chair recognizes the ranking member of our subcommittee on digital assets. [1:00:02] Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts, you're recognized for five minutes. [1:00:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:06] Direct to vote in 2023, the Department of Justice and Treasury reached a full billion dollar settlement with Binance [1:00:15] after the company willfully violated U.S. anti-money laundering and sanctions laws. [1:00:22] Binance had failed to safeguard its platform against terrorist organizations, [1:00:27] ransomware attackers and sanction actors in Iran, North Korea and Syria. [1:00:34] In March 2025, Binance wrote the code behind World Liberty Financial USD 1 stablecoin. [1:00:43] That's the cryptocurrency company predominantly owned by President Trump and his family, his sons. [1:00:51] Now, Binance also promoted the product to 275 million customers. [1:00:56] And recent financial disclosures by the president indicate that he personally made $263 million on that deal. [1:01:05] Two months later, the UAE, United Arab Emirates, a state home state owned investment firm, MGX, issued USD 1. [1:01:15] This is that the prompt stablecoin to make a $2 billion investment in Binance, giving President Trump a direct financial stake in the very exchange. [1:01:26] Binance that he had responsibility for monitoring from the previous money laundering. [1:01:34] In November 2025, President Trump pardoned the CEO, Changpeng Zhao, who was the CEO of Binance. [1:01:44] Again, with the recent disclosures that we've received and also supported by blockchain analytics data, [1:01:55] shows that over one million investors, these are consumers, these are the folks that you're supposed to be protecting, [1:02:02] lost over $3.8 billion on the Trump meme coin, which has lost 90% of its value, [1:02:10] while Trump has reaped over $1.4 billion in personal gain. [1:02:17] All of that has raised massive legal issues for those consumers who you're supposed to be protecting. [1:02:27] And those are matters well within your jurisdiction. [1:02:30] In addition, there are issues of abuse of power, improper emoluments under the Constitution, [1:02:38] self-dealing, conflict of interest. [1:02:40] So given your responsibility for protecting consumer, is any of that worthy of an investigation by your agency? [1:02:51] This administration has the highest ethical standards. [1:02:55] I would refer you to the statements made by the Trump Organization that all investments are made by third-party financial institutions. [1:03:03] I'm asking you if any of that, any of that, you know, the president getting $1.4 billion, [1:03:11] the consumers that you're supposed to be protecting lose $3.8 billion. [1:03:16] 90% of the value is gone. [1:03:20] The president obviously promoted this meme coin as he was coming into office. [1:03:25] None of that, none of that warrants an investigation. [1:03:28] Is that what you're telling this committee this morning? [1:03:30] No, there is nothing that we have done that is a conflict of interest. [1:03:36] This administration has the highest. [1:03:38] Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. [1:03:39] You're talking like we is you and the president. [1:03:42] You're supposed to be the cop on the beat at CFPB. [1:03:45] You're supposed to be it's it should be we the consumers feel are we the consume. [1:03:53] We the consumers see this, not you and the president. [1:03:57] He you know, he he's he has scammed these the $3.8 billion that that that these consumers lost that. [1:04:07] That's what you should be policing. [1:04:09] That's where you should be investigating. [1:04:11] You shouldn't be defending the president's deal. [1:04:13] You got a responsibility to investigate. [1:04:16] That's that's what we we all did when we created the CFPB. [1:04:21] So so you're saying there's nothing here. [1:04:24] None of that. [1:04:25] The the gain of the president. [1:04:27] The pardoning of Chang Peng Zhao. [1:04:30] The fact that that the UAE has used the Trump stable coin to to invest in finance, giving the president, you know, billions of dollars in personal financial gain. [1:04:46] You don't think there's anything and the harm to the consumers. [1:04:50] That's the key here. [1:04:51] Consumers lost three point eight billion dollars. [1:04:54] And you, sir, are responsible for protecting them. [1:04:57] And you don't think there's any any need for an investigation. [1:05:01] Is that what you're telling me? [1:05:02] I'm not going to rely on the extent to which fake newspapers portray the events that you're describing. [1:05:10] That's what investigations are for. [1:05:11] The gentleman's time has expired. [1:05:13] Just a reminder to both sides of the aisle. [1:05:16] All members of the committee are reminded to observe the principles of decorum and courtesy and debate. [1:05:20] House representatives and its committees. [1:05:22] Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair and not to speak unless properly recognized and avoid engaging personalities or impugning the motives of another member or of the president. [1:05:32] The chair now recognizes the chair of the House Small Business Committee, Mr. Williams of Texas for five minutes. [1:05:37] Just identified. [1:05:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here today. [1:05:41] I happen to be a car dealer back home and our industry got sucked into this by Cordray when we weren't even supposed to be in it. [1:05:47] So your testimony is personal to our industry. [1:05:51] Consumers deserve a clear information about the financial products they use. [1:05:54] And at the same time, the businesses that serve them deserve a clear rule so that they can comply with the law. [1:06:01] As a small business owner myself, I understand how important regulatory certainty is. [1:06:06] And when the agencies rely on enforcement actions instead of clear publicly available guidance, [1:06:11] it becomes much harder for responsible businesses to understand their legal obligations under entering the marketplace. [1:06:19] So, Director Vogt, how is the CFPB working to promote greater clarity and transparency regarding federal consumer financial laws, [1:06:27] particularly its UDAP authority, so that responsible businesses understand that compliance obligations and consumers continue to receive meaningful protections? [1:06:37] Thank you, Congressman. We've been very clear in putting out our guidance for supervision and enforcement on how we want to prioritize our tools. [1:06:47] We want to find actual victims. We want to provide identifiable consumer harm, which we view as material and measurable. [1:06:57] And we want to make sure that those are where we put all of our resources as opposed to some process that didn't get adhered to, [1:07:06] in which the company came forward and self-corrected it. [1:07:10] That is where we believe we can put as much lead on the target on behalf of consumers, [1:07:14] on behalf of the consumer protection laws that we have on the books in this country. [1:07:18] Thank you for that. And as Chairman of the Small Business Committee, [1:07:22] I hear every day from entrepreneurs who rely on loans to hire employees, purchase equipment and grow their businesses, [1:07:28] that many of these small businesses raised concerns about the previous administration's implementation of Section 1071. [1:07:35] We talked about that small business lending rule would impose significant compliance costs [1:07:40] and ultimately make it difficult for lenders to simply extend credit. [1:07:44] So, recognizing these concerns, the Trump administration, CFPB revised the Section 1071 rule by narrowing its scope, [1:07:51] modifying certain data collection requirements, and extending compliance deadlines to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on lenders and small businesses. [1:08:01] So, Director, can you explain how these revisions help rightsize compliance requirements, [1:08:06] improve access to credit for America's small business, and still ensure the CFPB fulfills its statutory responsibilities? [1:08:13] Sure, Congressman. I mean, if you load up the regulatory burdens on lending [1:08:20] and require for every small business loan 80 data fields to be filled in, none of which is relevant for the purposes of providing those kinds of loans, [1:08:32] you've increased the cost of doing business, and you're going to end up having fewer small business loans, [1:08:37] which I don't think anyone in this room wants. So, that is the reason why we prioritize that rule with you all, [1:08:45] and we're very proud of our final product. [1:08:47] It should be. The role of the CFPB is to enforce federal law, not to delay the work of financial institutions with burdensome mandates. [1:08:54] Currently, we're fixing a disjointed framework where multiple agencies have overlapping jurisdiction overseeing the same institutions. [1:09:01] This often creates excessive regulatory demands and conflicting obligations for financial institutions. [1:09:06] So, Director, in closing, can you please tell me what the CFPB is doing to improve interagency coordination [1:09:12] and minimize redundant oversight that burdens our financial institutions? [1:09:17] Sure. We've tried to not get in the way of the prudential regulators. We've tried to be very insistent that we stick to our portfolio [1:09:27] and to acknowledge that the regulated entities have many different regulators, and we've tried to take that approach and provide clarity on that front. [1:09:38] I would just like to close by saying the cost of regulation can destroy Main Street America, small businesses, [1:09:45] and the less we can regulate some of these businesses, the better off we are. [1:09:51] So, thank you for being here today. Appreciate it. [1:09:53] Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes our ranking member of our subcommittee on financial institutions. [1:09:59] Dr. Foster of Illinois, you're recognized for five minutes. [1:10:02] Yeah. Well, thank you. I wear several hats around here among them. [1:10:05] One, an actual manufacturer in this thing that started a company that manufactures a big part of the theater lighting equipment. [1:10:11] And I could talk for a long while about how destructive this administration has been towards U.S. manufacturing. [1:10:17] But I'm also a Ph.D. physicist. [1:10:19] Okay. In your spare time between destroying federal regulation regulators, you're also pretty far along in destroying the federal science enterprise. [1:10:29] Are you familiar with Omar Yagi? [1:10:31] Am I familiar with what? Omar Yagi. [1:10:33] He's a Palestinian refugee. He grew up in Jordan, came to the United States, won a Nobel Prize, and a brilliant, charismatic guy. [1:10:42] And he announced a few days ago that he is leaving the United States. [1:10:46] And you know where he's going? [1:10:47] China, where he will be leading the material science labs at one of their top universities. [1:10:52] So my question is this. [1:10:53] Could you please tell your boss that his current score on Nobel Prizes is negative one? [1:10:58] Could you tell him that? [1:11:00] No, I'm not going to tell him that because I think it's an inappropriate comment from you. [1:11:04] I think it's a factual comment. [1:11:07] Okay. [1:11:08] Now, I was one of the few members who was still on the committee who was around during the global financial crisis, [1:11:14] which was the result in large extent of abusive lending practices that caused dramatic failures in financial markets. [1:11:20] Lenders made loans that were impossible to repay. [1:11:22] They knew it with hidden fees, exploding adjustable interest rates, little or no evaluation of a borrower's ability to repay. [1:11:30] These practices contributed to widespread defaults and debt that resulted in a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout of the U.S. economy, [1:11:39] which is where you're heading us back down, the path you're heading us back down. [1:11:43] So this crisis caused Congress to create, among other things, the CFPB to address exactly the type of predatory lending practices that led to this crisis. [1:11:52] The Congress giving it authority over non-bank mortgage lenders, credit cards, student loans, and other consumer lending products. [1:11:59] Okay, maybe you think it's all fine now, but do you know how much debt the U.S. households have, how much debt they had prior to the peak of the 2008 financial crisis? [1:12:11] Not off the top of my head, no. [1:12:13] No, it was $12.68 trillion in 2008. [1:12:17] Do you know how much debt the U.S. households hold today? [1:12:19] How many? [1:12:20] $18.8 trillion. [1:12:22] There's more debt piled up in stressed American households than there was before the crisis. [1:12:28] And we're unfortunately just as naked against the same sort of abuse that we had as we had back then. [1:12:35] We're facing, American families are facing significant economic challenges, all the while this administration, [1:12:40] and you specifically, are attempting to cut 95% of the staff of the one agency empowered by Congress to protect them from abusive loans and predatory lenders. [1:12:49] This is not to mention that the mess that you and the president have gotten us into with tariffs and the conflict in Iran, [1:12:55] both of which are increasing cost and economic stress on Americans. [1:12:59] Your administration has presented no intelligible strategy to end either one of these. [1:13:04] And so one of the underappreciated aspects of the pre-2008 economy was the lack of supervision over non-bank financial institutions. [1:13:12] Before the crisis, many mortgages were issued by non-bank lenders, and that percentage increased from roughly 40% in 2008 to around 65% today. [1:13:21] Pre-2008, no agency had authority to oversee non-bank mortgage lenders. [1:13:27] This is the mortgage market that led to the financial crisis. [1:13:31] Congress then gave the CFPB authority to oversee non-bank mortgage lenders, an authority that was not previously held by any financial agency. [1:13:40] Do you know how many examinations the CFPB carried out on entities under its supervision since you've taken over as director? [1:13:48] We have continued our supervision enforcement activities. [1:13:51] I would just say, with regard to the non-banks, many of the legal theories that were used to supervise and enforce on non-banks were extrapolations that were quite novel from anything that you had ever passed. [1:14:08] So our issue is not whether we're willing to regulate non-banks. [1:14:12] The issue is the extent to which the legal theories and the statutes do not allow and that need to go through Congress, [1:14:18] to the extent to which we need to have that debate here in the People's House. [1:14:23] We did have that debate. [1:14:24] We passed. [1:14:25] I voted for and we passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill that gave you authority to deal with non-bank lenders. [1:14:33] All right. [1:14:34] And when you've got the administration, you're heading us down a path that is, I'm afraid, just going to send us right back. [1:14:40] Now, you made it abundantly clear. [1:14:42] You don't much care about ordinary Americans getting ripped off. [1:14:46] But maybe you care about rich people. [1:14:48] You remember Bernie Madoff? [1:14:50] Okay. [1:14:52] He scammed, you know, many, many very wealthy people, Republican donors that your boss cares about. [1:14:58] Okay. [1:14:59] And when we had hearing after hearing on how did that happen, it was because of underfunded regulators. [1:15:04] The gentleman's time has expired. [1:15:05] Go back. [1:15:06] The chair now recognizes the chair of our subcommittee on national security, Mr. Davidson of Ohio, for five minutes. [1:15:12] Thank you, Chairman. [1:15:13] And Chairman Vogt, thank you for your multiple hats. [1:15:16] But thank you for your work here at CFPB and answering our questions today. [1:15:20] And I have a new plan for some of my time. [1:15:23] I want to mention as a former manufacturing company owner, growing businesses in Ohio, we're very thankful for President Trump's leadership. [1:15:31] And that extends broadly across the administration. [1:15:34] Because for the first time, somebody intends to do something about China's failure to comply with their commitment to be a market economy. [1:15:42] They've weaponized the rules of trade against the United States. [1:15:46] And President Trump has made it a priority to grow jobs here in America. [1:15:51] We've done that with the Work and Family Tax Cuts Act. [1:15:53] We've encouraged incentive, incentivized investments in America. [1:15:57] We've done that with tariff and trade policy. [1:15:59] And we've seen overwhelming commitments by countries and companies around the world to make bigger foreign direct investments in the United States of America than ever before. [1:16:09] So far from the narrow experience of my colleague from Illinois, the broad market says that cash is flowing into the United States. [1:16:18] And the reality is one of the Nobel Prize laureates that he has, despite their narrative that America is some insufferable, terrible place, everyone in the world wants to be here. [1:16:32] We let a million people in legally every year. [1:16:35] But we've cracked down an illegal immigration. [1:16:38] They said we need to pass laws to do that. [1:16:40] We had laws. [1:16:41] We didn't apply them. [1:16:42] I'll bring that over into the financial sector and foreign investment. [1:16:46] We've got Nobel Prize laureates who would rather help China than the United States of America. [1:16:50] That might be a sign we didn't get the immigration thing right. [1:16:53] You want to be part of helping China advance in a competition against the United States? [1:16:57] Good riddance. [1:16:58] Enjoy your time in China. [1:16:59] Please don't come back. [1:17:00] I hope Secretary Rubio makes sure you can't. [1:17:03] So those are the kinds of things that, you know, America's policies advance America's interests that are across the board. [1:17:11] And when I think about, you know, consistency there, I think about woke and weaponized government. [1:17:18] And you certainly walked into an agency where that was off the charts. [1:17:22] You were pushing initiatives through or you weren't. [1:17:25] Your predecessor was pushing initiatives and predecessors going back to Richard Cordray. [1:17:32] We're pushing initiatives that were at odds with not just law, but the interest of the United States. [1:17:37] So could you highlight maybe some of the highlights of your experience there of how the agency was being abused from its proper purpose? [1:17:44] Well, let me give you the example of Townstone, which is a small mortgage lending company in Chicago that was only 31 mortgages short out of about 879 of violating some arbitrary threshold under disparate impact standard, [1:18:02] which we have now gotten away from and gotten rid of. [1:18:06] And that began over a series of time. [1:18:09] They use software to to mine all of the public comments of this president of this of Barry Sterner, the head of Townstone. [1:18:16] And they found out a small portion that he criticized crime in Chicago, which were the very same statements that the Democrat mayor of Chicago had said. [1:18:25] Well, they went after him for six to seven years, harassed him into paying a hundred thousand dollar fine. [1:18:32] All wrong. [1:18:33] No one ever accused him of discrimination. [1:18:37] They, in fact, did a survey of all of the people in the area that that the townstone served. [1:18:43] And not one person said that they believed that discrimination was occurring. [1:18:49] All of that was done at the CFPB over a series of years. [1:18:53] And when we went behind the curtain, we found that it escalated at key points about what different debates that we were having in this country, [1:19:02] not unlike the George Floyd situation. [1:19:04] So they were taking out frustration on Barry Sterner and his company because they could. [1:19:10] And that is what we mean by a weaponized agency against the American people. [1:19:15] And I can point to Cordova and I can point to other examples of that. [1:19:19] But that is what we found when we took control of the agency and what we tried to put an end to. [1:19:24] Yeah, thank you. [1:19:25] And sadly, that's been true across the whole spectrum. [1:19:27] And I think, you know, in every committee of jurisdiction, we could have, you know, hours of testimony talking about how that's changed. [1:19:34] And so thank you for, you know, being at the hub there. [1:19:37] In your role, I guess, just could you give us a little clarity on where we're going on open banking? [1:19:42] Because there was, you know, some effort there, some lack of statutory guidance. [1:19:46] But there's clearly a role for calling balls and strikes there for whose property is whose in the realm of banking. [1:19:53] We are very close to having a proposed rule. [1:19:57] It is one of those things that I would like a newly confirmed director to be able to finalize. [1:20:03] But we are very close. [1:20:04] We will take our timing from the Senate as to the confirmation of hopefully Brian Johnson. [1:20:10] But we are supportive of open banking as a concept. [1:20:13] And we're working hard on that rule. [1:20:15] Gentlemen, time is expired. [1:20:16] Chair now recognizes the ranking member of our Subcommittee on National Security, Ms. Beatty of Ohio, for five minutes. [1:20:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. [1:20:26] Director Vogt, Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank requires the collection of small business lending data to identify disparities in access to credit and enforce fair lending laws for small businesses. [1:20:40] Yet under your leadership, the CFPB has sought to delay and significantly scale back implementation of this statutory requirement. [1:20:49] Even though women owned businesses and minority owned businesses have faced long documented barriers to accessing capital. [1:20:58] Director Vogt, Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to maintain an office to promote diversity in the Bureau's workforce, [1:21:08] increase opportunities for minority and women owned businesses in contracting and access to diversity policies and practices of regulated financial institutions. [1:21:18] However, multiple news reports have indicated that under your leadership, the CFPB has dramatically reduced the OMWI office as part of a broader workforce cuts, [1:21:31] raising questions about whether the Bureau can still carry out these statutory requirements. [1:21:37] Director Vogt, I have heard directly from community development financial institutions in my state that they have experienced month long delays in receiving funding that Congress had already appropriated through the CDFI funds. [1:21:53] Those delays created uncertainty for lenders that finance affordable housing, small businesses and underserved communities, even though Congress had already approved the funding. [1:22:05] The recently released comprehensive housing council notice of funding opportunities is a drastic change from previous years. [1:22:17] The comprehensive funding is supposed to help families meet their housing needs, whether they are renters, homeowners or homeless. [1:22:24] Instead, under the Notice of Funding Opportunity, none of the CHC funding allowed by Congress can be used for pre-purchasing housing counseling at a time when there is a national crisis for first-time homeowners. [1:22:41] In case you aren't aware, we passed a bipartisan housing bill because of this. [1:22:47] Director Vogt, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires the Bureau to consult a small business panel. [1:22:58] I am a small business owner for more than 30 years and to conduct a cost benefit analysis before imposing rules with a significant economic impact. [1:23:08] Director Vogt, can you tell me who is your OMWI director? [1:23:15] Well, we have that office. [1:23:17] Just give me a name. [1:23:18] We have that office. [1:23:19] Wait a minute. [1:23:20] Because of time, I'm a respected chairman. [1:23:22] I need a name or a yes or no. [1:23:24] Do you know who your OMWI is? [1:23:26] Yes or no? [1:23:27] Do you know who your OMWI director is? [1:23:29] Yes or no? [1:23:30] What office are you referring to? [1:23:32] The Office of OMWI, which was put in by Dodd-Frank, Section 342 of OMWI. [1:23:40] What is the non-acronym? [1:23:42] So that means you don't know. [1:23:43] That's quite embarrassing. [1:23:44] I just don't know what your acronym is. [1:23:45] Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take my time back. [1:23:46] Let me tell you something. [1:23:47] I'm happy to answer in QFO. [1:23:48] No, you're not answering it because either you know the director and you know the person's name. [1:23:52] I've had Democrats and Republicans over your department to come in here. [1:23:57] Since someone mentioned Kathy Craninger, she came, she testified, she supported OMWI. [1:24:02] When we had Mick Mulvaney, he came in and testified. [1:24:07] Rich Cordray did. [1:24:08] Chopin did. [1:24:09] Everyone before you. [1:24:11] It's embarrassing and insulting. [1:24:12] This was created through Dodd-Frank. [1:24:15] So let me ask you this. [1:24:16] What is your justification for efforts to halt on the small business lending data on the collection, which Congress explicitly requires? [1:24:25] We're not halting it. [1:24:26] We just did a rule on 1071 to make sure we go forward and implement the statute as you spelled it out. [1:24:31] In Congress. [1:24:32] Well, that's not the information we had. [1:24:35] So let me move on. [1:24:36] What role did you or officials at OMB play in delaying the CDFI fund distribution? [1:24:46] We didn't delay it. [1:24:48] We just authorized it to go out and apportion the funds to Treasury. [1:24:52] They are 25 and 26 funds, which means they do not expire until the end of this year fiscally. [1:24:57] But we have concerns with regard to that program. [1:25:00] Okay. [1:25:01] Let me go to my next. [1:25:02] Let me go to my next. [1:25:03] Gender affirming. [1:25:04] Let me go to my next question. [1:25:05] Therapy and serve clientele of any. [1:25:07] I reclaim my time. [1:25:08] You're not gonna do this. [1:25:09] You're not gonna do this with me. [1:25:11] Okay. [1:25:12] I'm gonna respect you and you're gonna respect me. [1:25:14] So I'll go back to OMB. [1:25:15] It is my suggestion that you send to me in writing who your director is and what are your plans [1:25:24] to comply with section 342 of OMB. [1:25:26] And I yield back. [1:25:27] The gentleman's time has expired and appreciate the director's response to that question in [1:25:32] writing. [1:25:33] Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Timmons for five minutes. [1:25:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:25:38] And thank you acting director vote for being with us today and for your leadership in returning [1:25:44] the CFPB to its statutory mission. [1:25:47] This was a really good contrast because I think back to June 13th of 2024. [1:25:54] I sat in this hearing with director Chopra and we debated the proper role and scope of the CFPB. [1:26:00] He repeatedly invoked, quote, the democratic rule of law while arguing against Andy, Congressman [1:26:07] Andy Barr's Tabs Act and other carefully considered legislative proposals designed to provide greater [1:26:12] accountability and stability for the bureau. [1:26:15] He opposed efforts to curb the CFPB's dramatic policy swings, even though those swings have [1:26:20] created uncertainty and imposed real costs on American businesses. [1:26:24] At the time, I told him, quote, come January, whoever's sitting in your seat will have a very, [1:26:29] very different view of the CFPB's role. [1:26:34] My concern was that lasting policy should come from Congress, not from an agency whose priorities [1:26:38] can shift dramatically from one administration to the next. [1:26:43] Acting director vote. [1:26:44] Would you agree that your approach reflects a fundamentally different view of the CFPB's role? [1:26:49] And can you explain to my colleagues across the aisle and to the American people why you believe this [1:26:53] approach better serves American businesses? [1:26:56] We believe this is the most democratic approach to how to ensure that we're going to be a good steward of the agency. [1:27:01] Congress passed a law with regard to the CFPB and we are doing our duties under the law with regard to supervision, [1:27:08] enforcement, regulation when we tie very closely to the law. [1:27:12] And so often we wish that Congress had given more detail when they wrote those laws, [1:27:17] but we're certainly not going to take novel theories that the law does not countenance. [1:27:21] I couldn't agree with you more. As I said then, the wild swings in how the CFPB carries out its mission are not conducive to American competitiveness on the global stage. [1:27:32] Businesses and consumers alike benefit when regulators provide consistency, predictability and clear rules rather than frequent shifts in policy. [1:27:40] I told director Chopra that when the administration changed, [1:27:43] he and many of his Democrat colleagues would likely oppose the Bureau's new direction, as we can see in this hearing. [1:27:49] That's why durable policy should come from Congress, not changing regulatory priorities. [1:27:54] I appreciate the work you and your team are doing to return the CFPB to its statutory mission and provide a more transparent, consistent and accountable approach that benefits both consumers and the businesses in my district. [1:28:06] Now let's turn to what comes next. One of the recurring concerns we've heard from banks and credit unions is the amount of duplication between CFPB examinations and those already conducted by the prudential regulators. [1:28:18] The discussion draft before us would encourage a more tailored supervisory framework that relies on the expertise of those regulators while preserving the CFPB's authority to step in when real consumer risks emerge. [1:28:29] From your perspective, how would a more coordinated supervisory approach reduce unnecessary duplication and allow the CFPB to better focus its resources on protecting consumers? [1:28:38] Well, I think it's a vital piece of it. If you look on the backside of our supervision work, you will see a calendar that is open to all of the regulators, including the state regulators, [1:28:51] so that when we have an interest in asking questions of a particular entity, we can align those with the event calendar of other regulators. [1:29:03] And we think it's a really important part of the process to make this as easy on them as possible. [1:29:07] Thank you for that. Do you believe that reducing overlapping examinations would free examiners to spend more time identifying bad actors instead of repeatedly reviewing institutions with established compliance programs? [1:29:19] Yes. [1:29:20] The same principle applies to the Bureau of Supervision of non-bank financial companies. [1:29:25] The CFPB's resources should be focused where the risks to consumers are greatest, not spread so broadly that responsible companies face unnecessary uncertainty while bad actors receive less attention. [1:29:36] How would the reforms in this discussion draft help the Bureau better prioritize its resources while giving responsible businesses greater regulatory certainty? [1:29:46] We want to know where there are actual problems in our consumer financial markets. [1:29:51] That takes examiners being freed up to focus on it, to look at trends, and we want to make sure they have the ability to do that. [1:29:59] And I think the extent to which you're freeing us up to do that would be helpful. [1:30:02] One question. [1:30:03] How often do employees at the CFPB work at 630 on a Friday afternoon? [1:30:08] Is that a regular thing or is it more business hour, bank hours, nine to five? [1:30:12] I doubt they're working that late on that. [1:30:15] I just want to point out that the last thing Director Chopra did before he left was send out a number of CIDs at 630 p.m. on a Friday. [1:30:23] And that's the kind of it really just defines his legacy of using the CFPB in ways it was not intended to do. [1:30:30] That's not consumer protection. [1:30:32] That's just retaliation. [1:30:33] And it's a good thing that we are moving in a much better direction. [1:30:37] You just gave a great data point for why we did the humility pledge. [1:30:40] Thank you. [1:30:41] I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [1:30:42] Thank you, sir. [1:30:43] Chair now recognizes the ranking member on our task force of monetary policy. [1:30:47] The gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, you're recognized for five minutes. [1:30:50] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking member. [1:30:53] Well, I guess we can all agree on one thing. [1:30:57] We're all going to be happy when you're gone, including yourself. [1:31:02] And the reason for that, I think that there's been a tidal wave of harm to consumers since you've been at the CFPB, a tidal wave. [1:31:12] Special interests are being protected and supported, just like you involved yourself in that getting that big one big ugly bill passed. [1:31:22] And you said you were going to be draining the swamp. [1:31:26] That's what you said. [1:31:27] You sounded here earlier, too. [1:31:28] You said we, when you talk, either you're the royal we or you and the president are the same. [1:31:33] You're going to be draining the swamp. [1:31:36] Well, what's really happening, it's expanding. [1:31:40] And it really is unfortunate. [1:31:43] And you see this humility pledge. [1:31:45] It's not a humility pledge. [1:31:46] It's a surrender pledge. [1:31:48] And that's what you're doing. [1:31:50] You're surrendering to large businesses. [1:31:53] You don't have the consumers in mind at all anymore. [1:31:56] And you make up numbers. [1:31:58] You make up numbers. [1:31:59] It's cost $300 billion. [1:32:02] No, real numbers is the money that went back to consumers that were getting ripped off previously under the other administration, [1:32:10] when you actually got money back when you were defrauded. [1:32:14] Instead, you have this humility pledge. [1:32:16] You go in with your examiners and say, we're here kneeling before you, big business. [1:32:21] We're here for you, not for the consumers. [1:32:23] That's what you're doing today. [1:32:25] And again, you said yourself, you're not going to be unhappy when you're not here. [1:32:30] You're ready to leave. [1:32:31] We're all ready to see you leave too. [1:32:33] This Bureau was created to protect consumers. [1:32:37] And that's not what you're doing at all. [1:32:40] In fact, quite the opposite. [1:32:41] You're protecting big businesses. [1:32:43] That's what you're doing. [1:32:46] And I was kind of curious. [1:32:47] You throw out words like cavalier and swagger, the whims of an ideologue at the Bureau. [1:32:55] I was going to ask you if you didn't bite your tongue when you said that. [1:32:59] I mean, I don't know of a person who is more cavalier that has come before us, more swagger, or bigger ideologue. [1:33:10] I mean, you seem to describe yourself well. [1:33:13] I don't know if you were attempting to do that. [1:33:16] And with that, I'm just saying I'll be very happy when you're gone. [1:33:21] But unfortunately, I think we're going to find a bunch of crap happen. [1:33:24] You're going to see redlining happen. [1:33:26] You're going to see discrimination. [1:33:28] You're going to see fraud. [1:33:29] You're going to see that businesses got away with a lot of things because you weren't the cop on the beat. [1:33:34] You weren't at all. [1:33:35] In fact, you were there for the businesses, for the big businesses, for the big special interests. [1:33:41] You weren't there for the consumers. [1:33:43] With that, Mr., unless the ranking member wants me to yield some time, that's what I wanted to say. [1:33:50] No, keep it going. [1:33:51] I like what you're doing. [1:33:52] No, I think I said what I meant, and I think I said enough. [1:33:56] With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. [1:33:58] The gentleman from California yields back, and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, for five minutes. [1:34:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:34:08] Vote. [1:34:09] We appreciate you being here today. [1:34:12] You know, the CFPB was designed, no matter how flawed that design was, was to protect consumers. [1:34:23] I think it's been clear to many of us who have sat, at least in the dais and on this side of the room, that for many years, that was not what the CFPB was doing, [1:34:36] but it was a name and shame organization against businesses and industries that it determined, or its director determined, they did not like. [1:34:46] That is not the design. [1:34:47] That is not the constitutional design, nor the design of what any government agency should be. [1:34:55] And so our constitutional system entrusts Congress with writing the laws and the executive branch with faithfully executing them. [1:35:02] That distinction is fundamental to ensuring that significant policy decisions are made by the people's elected representatives, rather than by administrative agencies, which is what we've seen within CFPB for many years is writing their own rules and proceeding with their own agenda. [1:35:22] Many have questions whether the CFPB under the Biden administration at times interpreted broadly worded statutes in a way that effectively created new legal obligations beyond those Congress expressly enacted. [1:35:36] Mr. Vote, do you agree that whether intended or not, that sort of behavior can erode confidence in both the agency and the regulatory process? [1:35:46] I do. [1:35:47] Thank you. [1:35:48] Could you discuss how the CFPB is approaching its statutory authorities today and what principles guide your efforts to ensure that the CFPB faithfully executes the laws Congress has written without expanding its authority beyond those statutory limits? [1:36:03] Well, we imposed a clear bar on doing any enforcement that is really a back end way to do regulation. [1:36:10] We dismissed those cases and as a result, we are very much in line with our priorities that are looking for consumer fraud that's identifiable and measurable, but not to do it in a way that we're using a novel legal theory to interrupt federal bankruptcy laws or some other aspect of statute that was never given to the CFPB. [1:36:37] Well, thank you for that. [1:36:41] Thank you for that. [1:36:42] And I think what I hear, especially from the other side, is that operating within the scope of what the agency was legally authorized to do is somehow abandoning consumer protection. [1:37:00] We have seen, many of us who have been here for a while, have seen how the CFPB continually, I wouldn't even call it mission creep, but mission advancement would start regulating areas they were specifically prohibited from being into. [1:37:16] One hallmark of good government is that agencies fully consider both the benefits and the cost of their regulatory actions before imposing new requirements on the American people. [1:37:25] Consumer protection and economic opportunity are not mutually exclusive. [1:37:30] In fact, regulations are most effective when they are carefully tailored to address demonstrable consumer harm while avoiding unnecessary costs that may ultimately be borne by consumers through higher prices, reduced access to credit or fewer financial products. [1:37:47] That principle is reflected in the transparency and cost benefit analysis. [1:37:51] My legislation requires CFPB to conduct more robust economic analysis and publicly evaluate the expected costs and benefits of its significant regulatory actions. [1:38:01] Greater transparency not only improves the quality of an agency decision making, but also allows Congress, regulated entities, consumers and the public to better understand the rationale underlying the CFPB's action. [1:38:15] Mr. Root, from your perspective, how would you work? [1:38:20] How would you require more rigorous cost benefit analysis and greater transparency in the rulemaking process to improve CFPB's ability to create effective regulation? [1:38:29] Great question. [1:38:30] First of all, we're already doing it because we have brought in so-called independent agency regulations into the OIRA structure. [1:38:36] So we are already doing that now, but it would be very valuable to have that be a requirement that you would force the agency to do that. [1:38:46] Even if there was a different administration that doesn't have the same view as it regards to independent agencies. [1:38:51] All right. [1:38:52] Liz, I'm running short on time. [1:38:53] I just want to say thank you for the job you're doing. [1:38:56] I hope that you continue leading this direction to where it will truly represent consumers of that. [1:39:03] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:39:05] I thank the gentleman from Georgia. [1:39:06] The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Illinois. [1:39:09] Mr. Caston, you're recognized for five minutes. [1:39:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here today. [1:39:13] I want to just first flag that there's an intellectual inconsistency at the heart of your testimony today. [1:39:20] You've said multiple times that the CFPB under your predecessor was a political agency. [1:39:24] And you've opposed the fact that Congress specifically made CFPB independent to isolate it from political pressures. [1:39:31] You can choose one but not the other. [1:39:33] I'm not asking for your opinion on that because your opinion is wrong. [1:39:37] The we chose to isolate it from political pressures. [1:39:40] And we chose that in a political process in the best sense of the word. [1:39:44] The job we have is political because balancing equities in a democracy is a political choice. [1:39:50] When you drive home today and you fill your car with gas, you will pay the listed price for gasoline, not the price that the gas station thinks you can afford to pay. [1:39:58] Because we passed a law that protects consumers against the political interests of a more powerful set of players in our economy. [1:40:08] You may politically believe that you should stand with bullies against the bullied. [1:40:12] You may politically believe that you should favor the powerful over the weak and the merciless over the meek. [1:40:18] Those are political choices that you make. [1:40:20] We made the CFPB independent to protect us from that. [1:40:26] That's funny. [1:40:27] And I want to I'm not asking for I will let you know when I'd like you to speak. [1:40:30] Let's quantify some of the pain you have created on our society, because since you have come in, the CFPB has voluntarily dismissed more than 20 enforcement cases that would have returned three and a half billion dollars to consumers who were ripped off or defrauded. [1:40:44] Examples of a couple of these are all from the CFPB websites. [1:40:48] The you abandoned a lawsuit against a bank that mistreated seniors and disabled customers. [1:40:53] The disabled woman who had tried to get a replacement card on the CFPB website that this left her unable to pay her rent and forced her to take out an $800 loan. [1:41:01] You eliminated an order against a credit union that had charged service members, veterans, people who've served our country, risked their life for our country. [1:41:08] Department of Defense employees with $80 million in illegal fees. [1:41:12] One service member said those undisclosed charges were a huge part as to why I had to file for bankruptcy. [1:41:18] So my question right now for you as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [1:41:24] What is your message today to the active duty service members, the veterans, the disabled folks, the senior citizens, the consumers who do not believe they have an advocate in your office anymore? [1:41:36] Why should they trust you? [1:41:38] I don't agree with your characterization. [1:41:40] I'm asking what your message is to the people who wrote those messages on the CFPB website and said, I need help. [1:41:45] Do you not care about them? [1:41:47] We go around to military bases. [1:41:50] We do this, the financial literacy all over the time. [1:41:53] Anecdotes are not data. [1:41:54] Three and a half billion dollars is data. [1:41:57] You claimed a moment ago that the CFPB has been a net cost on society. [1:42:02] You just used an anecdote to argue against me. [1:42:03] Now you're saying the anecdotes are not data? [1:42:05] Three and a half billion dollars is data. [1:42:07] All of those cases that were dropped were data. [1:42:10] You said a moment ago that the CFPB is a net cost to society, but you know that for every dollar that the CFPB spent, it returned three dollars to consumers. [1:42:23] You claim to be a fiscally responsible guy. [1:42:26] How does abandoning efforts to provide billions of dollars in financial remedies and just turning this agency into a net cost consumer? [1:42:33] How does that help consumers? [1:42:34] How does that help America? [1:42:35] We cut the agency in half and returned 400 million dollars that we didn't need to draw from the Federal Reserve. [1:42:41] Sir, you understand that the United States economy actually has a private sector? [1:42:47] When you take three dollars from consumers to save a dollar in the Federal Government, I'll give you a second. [1:42:52] The math don't math. [1:42:53] I'm not going to concede the framework that suggests that all of the costs being put on by the agency. [1:42:58] That's because you are lying. [1:43:00] You, you, have you, my goodness, you are smarter than this. [1:43:06] You've said previously that the CFPB is a victory for the little guy, all your cuts. [1:43:14] Is it your position that the majority of these terminated settlements were initially brought by mom and pop against mom and pop companies that you've protected small businesses through your actions? [1:43:22] The majority of these were based on enforcement actions that we did not have the authority or were inconsistent with our guidelines that we have put forward. [1:43:29] Okay. So the beneficiaries, according to Bloomberg, 70 percent of the beneficiaries from your canceled settlements were firms that had more than 500 million dollars in annual revenue listed on the S&P 500. [1:43:41] That's who you've protected. That's a choice. Last question that the ranking member had talked about some of what happened with Doge. [1:43:53] According to court filings, you sent an email granting Doge employees unfettered access to 40 different CFPB systems containing PIA data. [1:44:00] That's in the court filings. What role did you play in enabling people to illegally access confidential information with social security numbers who were in the CFPB system? [1:44:10] I will say generally, as the director of the agency, I was in charge of the administration being able to do its job at the CFPB. [1:44:18] Feel free to answer that question in writing in detail. The gentleman's time has expired. [1:44:24] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Stutzman, for five minutes. [1:44:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Vogt, for being here. And I'll say thank you for your humility today. [1:44:37] You're taking a lot from the other side, which I think has been quite, quite disturbing, especially my friend from California who's now left. [1:44:47] I know him and I know you and I believe you both are good, strong, honest people who could probably work a lot of these things out rather than making a wild accusation from the dais. [1:45:02] I'm going to miss seeing you there. The other thing and I'm kind of curious if anybody on the other side of the aisle has actually read the CFPB humility and supervisions pledge. [1:45:17] I looked it up and I think if if they were on the other side of the desk, if CFPB walked in to see them, they would be happy to hear the pledge that is made because just just a couple of these points. [1:45:37] The upcoming supervision examination cycle is going to be fundamentally different from the prior ones under the former director Chopra, which bringing up Mr. Chopra, [1:45:49] former director Chopra made the agency political, pretending otherwise it is a classic attempt by the other side of the aisle is trying to rewrite the history. [1:45:57] And so I find it pretty rich coming from the people who defended Chopra constantly that he was at the White House every other week pushing the Biden political agenda. [1:46:05] Would you agree with that? I believe he certainly was a political appointee. [1:46:10] He was nominated by the Biden administration and he was a policy official for that for that administration. [1:46:16] And honestly, that's what democracy is about is policy officials that come in with an administration doing the work of the executive branch based on an election. [1:46:26] Well, I want to go on back to the supervisions pledge for this round of examinations. [1:46:33] There will be greater transparency regarding the process and clarity regarding expectations. [1:46:38] I think that's what we're all concerned have been concerned about from CFPB. [1:46:42] From the very beginning, that this is a little empire under itself that has very little accountability that with the right person to accomplish an agenda without accountability is what the other side of the aisle wanted, [1:46:59] rather than actually holding them accountable to be sure that the people that it regulated were protected. [1:47:07] And so it's easy for them to make out, you know, these those who were regulated by the CFPB as the boogeyman when actually they made life more difficult for those who they were saying they were trying to protect. [1:47:22] I think one of the most troubling examples of the CFPB overreach under prior leadership was the Townstone case. [1:47:30] In this case, CFPB advanced a novel legal theory that sought to expand the Equal Credit Opportunity Act beyond its traditional purview to regulate speech and marketing directed at prospective customers. [1:47:43] Many view that move as another example of the Bureau attempting to rewrite the law through enforcement. [1:47:48] I was very pleased to see the CFPB under your leadership seek to vacate the final judgment citing infringement on the defendant's First Amendment rights. [1:47:58] Looking back on the Townstone case, what do you believe it says about the enforcement philosophy of the previous leadership and how has your approach differed? [1:48:08] It had differed starkly. Townstone was one of the best examples, not the only example of the extent to which we saw direct evidence, particularly when we did the oversight within the agency of the way that they were ratcheting up the pressure on this particular mortgage lender because he had a podcast that was concerned with crime. [1:48:30] And he had made comments that were basically the exact same thing that a Democratic mayor of Chicago had made, and yet they went after him for six to seven years in an attempt to ruin him. [1:48:40] He ultimately settled for $100,000. We tried to overturn it. We were unable to in court, but I was very proud to try and to call on behalf of the agency and to apologize to Mr. Sterner. [1:48:52] Thank you. And then finally, do you share our concerns that the current Dodd-Frank era statute and structure make the CFPB more susceptible to being weaponized again? [1:49:03] Yes, because you do not have to come and ask for the resources from Congress each and every year to remain accountable to the American people. [1:49:11] All right. Thank you. You think we should take action? [1:49:13] Yes. Thank you. I'll yield back. [1:49:15] The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the general woman from Massachusetts, Ms. Presley, for five minutes. [1:49:21] Director Vogt, I, too, am glad that you're leaving. Sadly, your harm will remain for generations to come. [1:49:32] I've every reason to believe that history will judge you harshly, especially in that you were a key author of Project 2025. [1:49:43] Again, implications that we'll be feeling for generations like this. [1:49:49] That's $500 billion. [1:49:52] Director Vogt, that's how much medical debt Americans hold. [1:49:57] In fact, many families have medical debt over $50,000. [1:50:00] Now, that may not be a lot of money to Republicans like Trump, who, quote, don't think about Americans' financial situation. [1:50:06] But that is a lot of money for most people. [1:50:09] This is debt people accumulated during the most challenging times in their lives, like battling cancer or recovering from an accident. [1:50:17] The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under Biden, issued rules making sure that medical debt would not be reported on credit reports [1:50:25] and put guardrails around how that debt can be collected. [1:50:28] Common sense things like companies not being able to come after you for bills you've already paid. [1:50:34] Now, to be clear, these kinds of protections were supported by families throughout the country, Director Vogt. [1:50:40] In rural communities, in urban communities, in suburban communities, and in Democratic and Republican districts. [1:50:48] But, Director Vogt, you took that away when you rescinded those rules. [1:50:52] Director Vogt, give me one reason why companies should be able to harass cancer survivors to collect more than they owe for a medical bill. [1:51:00] Well, they shouldn't be able to harass, and we have laws on the books that, but the rules that we changed were specifically... [1:51:05] Give me one good reason. [1:51:06] You rescinded the rule where medical debt would not have been reported on credit reports. [1:51:11] Because the statute didn't allow it. [1:51:12] Give me one. [1:51:13] You don't have one good reason. [1:51:14] Moving on. [1:51:15] The statute literally said the reverse. [1:51:16] There is not one good reason. [1:51:18] You claim, you avow that you are a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist. [1:51:24] So I'm sure you spent some time in Sunday school. [1:51:26] That's a pejorative. [1:51:27] I'm sorry, did you happen upon a scripture that said, [1:51:31] Thou shall make their neighbor poorer, hungrier, sicker, and less safe? [1:51:35] That's actually what you've done. [1:51:37] I didn't ask you to speak. [1:51:38] This makes no sense. [1:51:42] You are as incompetent as you are cruel and callous. [1:51:46] Seriously. [1:51:48] There are millions of families who have had to deal with an unexpected medical crisis. [1:51:54] Including yours, I'm sure. [1:51:56] Because cancer and illness do not discriminate. [1:51:59] They don't care how fat your wallet is. [1:52:01] Or what your zip code is. [1:52:04] Everyone has been faced with some unexpected crisis that interrupted their life and destabilized their financial future. [1:52:10] Carrying the burden of caregiving. [1:52:12] Carrying the burden of sleepless nights. [1:52:15] Carrying the burden of debt unpaid. [1:52:18] Medical bills. [1:52:19] But what upsets me most. [1:52:21] Please look at me. [1:52:22] What upsets me most is the shame that people carry about that debt. [1:52:26] So let me be clear to families throughout the country. [1:52:28] The only people who should be ashamed of medical debt is the Republican Party. [1:52:33] Because they have obstructed progress for affordable healthcare at every turn. [1:52:39] And then they rescinded the rule that would have given you some relief. [1:52:43] Would the gentlelady yield? [1:52:44] I will not. [1:52:45] This is my time. [1:52:46] Would the gentlelady yield? [1:52:47] I will not yield. [1:52:48] This is my time. [1:52:49] And he's on his way out the door. [1:52:52] And he needs to know exactly the harm he's caused. [1:52:55] But the American people deserve to know. [1:52:57] We should talk about Obamacare. [1:52:58] I will not yield. [1:52:59] It's Ms. Presley's time. [1:53:00] Why are you speaking to me? [1:53:01] Why are you speaking to me when I didn't yield to you? [1:53:04] Direct your vote. [1:53:06] You have gutted the CFPB. [1:53:08] You have dropped settlements the CFPB brought against predatory companies that were supposed [1:53:13] to provide relief to customers. [1:53:15] Three hundred and sixty million dollars to help people gone. [1:53:19] Americans are in dire need of financial relief. [1:53:22] But Trump and his co-conspirators, his cult of co-conspirators, are making life worse for everyday people. [1:53:28] And I mean everyone. [1:53:29] Women. [1:53:30] The disabled. [1:53:31] Young people. [1:53:32] Seniors. [1:53:33] Veterans. [1:53:34] Immigrants. [1:53:35] Burdened by debt and predatory collection reporting practices. [1:53:39] That is exactly why I introduce legislation to stop you from hurting people. [1:53:45] Like getting rid of consumer protections related to medical debt. [1:53:49] The American public deserves better. [1:53:52] They deserve better than you. [1:53:55] They deserve a CFPB director who puts the consumer protection in this. [1:54:01] Who actually gives a damn. [1:54:03] Instead of attacking hard working families who are financially trapped by Trump's reckless [1:54:08] policies. [1:54:09] Consumer protection should not be a partisan issue or a political gain. [1:54:16] You have dedicated your career to helping corporations get richer, making families sicker, [1:54:23] hungry or poorer, and less safe. [1:54:25] And there is nothing Christian about that. [1:54:26] The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for five minutes. [1:54:31] Mr. Rose, you're recognized. [1:54:33] Thank you, Chairman Hill. [1:54:34] And thank you, Ranking Member Waters, for holding this important hearing. [1:54:37] And Director Vogt, thank you for being with us today. [1:54:41] Director Vogt, if you'd like. [1:54:43] I'd like to give you a little bit of time to respond to the attack on your Christian faith. [1:54:48] No need to. [1:54:49] She's using pejoratives that the other side continues to use. [1:54:52] That's okay. [1:54:53] Well, thank you. [1:54:54] And again, thank you for being here with us today. [1:54:56] Director Vogt, one of the recurring concerns surrounding the CFPB small business lending rule, [1:55:02] implementing section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, has been the privacy implications associated [1:55:09] with collecting and publishing detailed information regarding small business credit applicants. [1:55:14] While Congress directed the CFPB to collect certain information, [1:55:18] it did not adequately protect against the unnecessary public disclosure of information [1:55:23] that could reveal sensitive details about individual businesses or their owners. [1:55:28] Small businesses deserve confidence that proprietary financial information submitted to comply with federal law [1:55:35] will be appropriately safeguarded and that transparency does not come at the expense of privacy. [1:55:41] That is the reason I introduced the Bank Loan Privacy Act to require the CFPB to clarify through notice and comment rulemaking [1:55:50] how this information will be published while better protecting confidential information. [1:55:55] Could you discuss how the CFPB can fulfill its statutory obligations under section 1071 while ensuring that sensitive information regarding small businesses is protected from unnecessary public disclosure? [1:56:09] We agree. [1:56:10] We are going to, in the absence of your bill, we're going to put it through notice and comment to make sure the public has a chance to comment on it. [1:56:16] Thank you. [1:56:18] I appreciate that greatly. [1:56:19] Effective regulation requires agencies to prioritize finite supervisory resources. [1:56:24] And you've talked about that today where they are most needed. [1:56:27] Frankly, institutions with strong compliance management systems, histories of cooperation and low risk business models should not necessarily be subject to the same supervisory intensity as firms with repeated compliance failures or evidence of consumer harm. [1:56:43] At a risk based supervisory framework not only allows the CFPB to focus on its greatest threats to consumers, [1:56:52] it also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on responsible institutions that are making good faith efforts to comply with the law. [1:57:01] Director Vogt, how is the CFPB ensuring that its supervisory program is appropriately risk focused? [1:57:08] And what factors does it consider in determining where its examination and enforcement resources can have the greatest impact on protecting consumers? [1:57:17] Thank you for the question. [1:57:18] We've done a lot of work to free up examiners by not requiring them to be in person for eight hours a day, eight examiners for eight weeks that we believe, based on the travel budgets of the agency, were basically junkets. [1:57:32] So we have both freed up examiners and then we've been very clear about our priorities. [1:57:36] We want to find identifiable victims with measurable and material consumer damages as opposed to just paperwork violations. [1:57:46] Thank you. [1:57:47] You've you've had an opportunity to see up close and personal how CFPB has worked and how it has failed. [1:57:54] And so I'd like your your insights about how ambiguous regulatory standards coupled with an independent funding source and a single director structure uniquely insulate the bureau from standard checks and balances. [1:58:10] And why is comprehensive reform necessary to protect both consumers and the broader financial industry? [1:58:16] Well, I mean, it's vital. [1:58:17] This has been a an agency that has had an edge to it, as I've said. [1:58:23] It has been unaccountable to Congress and to the administration, and we have taken steps to deal with that. [1:58:29] I think it's important that that preparations be a part of that reform. [1:58:35] I think a single director is is important because they all of these agency heads work for the president of the United States. [1:58:44] And some of these kind of bipartisan panels are a little bit more of a feature prior to some of the recent Supreme Court decisions. [1:58:51] So these are all really important reforms. [1:58:54] And I really hope that you're able to pass some of them. [1:58:57] Thank you, Director Vogt. [1:58:59] What is the purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act and how does adhering to its requirements benefit consumers? [1:59:06] The bottom line is that the APA allows the public to know the extent to which Congress or that the administration will be doing the lawmaking that you've delegated essentially us by virtues of the statute that you've given us. [1:59:21] And there's all manner of detail that goes into rulemaking that the public needs to be able to say, hey, this is going to have real costs. [1:59:29] This part could have real benefits. [1:59:30] And we need to know that before we make final decisions. [1:59:33] Why we do a proposed stage is why we do a final stage. [1:59:36] Thank you, Director Vogt. [1:59:37] We appreciate your service to the nation. [1:59:39] Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Gottheimer, for five minutes. [1:59:44] Okay. [1:59:47] Sorry. [1:59:49] Okay. [1:59:50] Okay, sorry. [1:59:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:59:52] Mr. Vogt. [1:59:53] In your capacity as the Director of OMB, you impounded numerous grant programs that directly impacted residents of New Jersey, including $16 billion in funds for the Gateway Train Project. [2:00:02] I was proud to help pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which helped fund the most important infrastructure project in our nation. [2:00:08] The impoundment of these funds put more than $95,000 jobs and $20 billion at risk for our economy. [2:00:13] Can you explain to me why you felt it was necessary to impound the funds that have had a direct impact on the lives of people in my home state? [2:00:20] And I'm really curious to hear. [2:00:21] They were not impoundments. [2:00:22] They were going through a policy review as to the degree to which those contracts had been based on DEI preferences. [2:00:30] The DOT has been in charge of that review, and I believe is moving forward on the project. [2:00:36] Yeah, but everyone had signed off on it. [2:00:38] There wasn't a DEI issue. [2:00:39] What's that? [2:00:40] You had everyone sign off on it. [2:00:41] It just held up the project. [2:00:43] No, there was a review. [2:00:44] There was a review that could not occur in the middle of that shutdown, but there was a review done. [2:00:48] Director, there are concerns with the rapid rise in children accessing prediction markets and sportsbooks. [2:00:54] That's why I'm taking action introducing legislation that requires prediction markets and online sportsbooks to use facial recognition technology to verify users' age before they place a wager or make a trade. [2:01:04] Director, shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that our children are not placing bets and gambling online? [2:01:10] That's not something we've taken a look at, but we're happy to take a look at any of the legislation that Congress has before it. [2:01:15] What do you think of the idea about it? [2:01:16] Are you concerned with children? [2:01:17] I'm not going to speak to things that are outside my portfolio. [2:01:19] Okay. [2:01:20] According to 2025 Internet Crime Complaint Center's elder fraud report, the FBI received more than 200,000 complaints from victims over the age of 60, totaling approximately $7.7 billion in losses. [2:01:30] That's an egregious number, and financial scams that target our seniors need to be addressed. [2:01:34] The ethos of the Trump administration has been fraud and abuse. [2:01:38] Director, is the CFPB doing anything to crack down on this staggering fraud? [2:01:42] We believe that there is fraud in the consumer financial protection markets, and that's what our enforcement and supervision work is aimed at countering. [2:01:52] We reject the characterization, or I reject the characterization, of how you described the administration. [2:01:58] How do you feel about elder fraud overall you think is an issue we should be spending more time on? [2:02:02] Of course. [2:02:03] And has that been something that you've made progress on during your period of time? [2:02:06] It's certainly within the degree of things that we worked at the CFPB. [2:02:11] I think, you know, Representative Wagner and I are working on a piece of legislation called the Financial Exploitation and Revention Act, which passed the House of Representatives in June of 2026. [2:02:24] I'd really love you to take a look at it if you would. [2:02:26] Sure. [2:02:27] Thank you. [2:02:29] The government, in my opinion, should responsibly and transparently put AI to work by cutting red tape. [2:02:34] This includes speeding up permits, translating public meetings, and shortening the time Americans wait on services they need. [2:02:40] It also remains important, in my opinion, that AI is utilized as a tool to ensure the United States remains economically strong in our ongoing competition with China, while, of course, protecting Americans in every which way. [2:02:50] Director, in your capacity, as the director of OMB, you're responsible for managing how the federal government uses AI. [2:02:55] Do you mind talking a little bit about how you were directing federal agencies to responsibly integrate AI to ensure that Americans receive better services from their government? [2:03:02] Well, we're encouraging them to use AI to do important work that they might be underway. [2:03:08] We're sharing best practices with them from other parts of the agencies that we get a bird's eye view of. [2:03:14] We're pioneering it ourselves with regard to ways that we can assess what spending is consistent with the administration's policy agenda. [2:03:22] So from a wide degree perspective, we're trying to use AI and encourage it. [2:03:28] Are you putting any guardrails in place as you do it? [2:03:30] Like, how are you to make sure that it's used the right way or that there's not threats to our critical infrastructure? [2:03:36] Have you looked at that perspective? [2:03:38] We have put out guidance over the course of this last year and a half, and I'm happy to share some of those guidances with you. [2:03:45] I'd love to learn more about best practices where where in government you see it working well, how it's made government more efficient, how it's cut bureaucracy. [2:03:53] That'd be really helpful if that's something that we could follow up on with you. [2:03:56] Be happy to. [2:03:57] Thanks so much. I yield back. [2:03:58] Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent. [2:04:04] Yes. [2:04:05] What does the general woman seek recognition for? [2:04:07] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [2:04:08] I ask unanimous consent to include an investigative report from July 2026 by Protect Borrowers entitled Alone in Every Cart. [2:04:16] Without objection, I'll be included in the record. [2:04:18] The chair recognizes the chair of our subcommittee on digital assets. [2:04:21] Mr. Stile, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:04:23] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [2:04:25] Director Vogt, thank you for being with us today. [2:04:28] I want to start with a thank you. [2:04:30] This committee passed legislation to provide consumer protection in the earned wage access space, passing my bill to earn wage access consumer protection act. [2:04:40] You and your staff provided helpful technical assistance. [2:04:44] I just want to say thank you. [2:04:45] We've talked a little bit about the structure of the CFPB and if you serve on this committee, the sway of how much individuals agree or disagree with the director of the CFPB seems to go with the political persuasion and their alignment with the administration. [2:05:00] I think you're doing a great job. [2:05:01] May the record reflect. [2:05:02] But I think there are structural deficiencies of the CFPB. [2:05:07] You spoke to this, in particular, the ability to sue and settle to try to drive a political agenda, but also to fund the CFPB. [2:05:16] You spoke on this a little bit before, but in your position also is the chair of the full, as director of OMB writ large. [2:05:23] Can you just comment a little further as to what the risks are of having agencies that have their own self-funding structure and can make decisions that impact the funding, not just in this administration, but writ large on the structure Congress created? [2:05:37] I think it's a profound issue. [2:05:40] I think it's very important to not have the seesaw impact with regard to the extent to which you have such uncertainty with regard to a new administration coming on board and how it approaches some of the discretionary jump balls. [2:05:55] So subjecting it to appropriations is massively important. [2:05:59] And I just also want to say thank you for your work on earned wage access products. [2:06:02] They're very innovative and we were happy to put out guidance along those lines. [2:06:08] Thank you. [2:06:09] To follow up on the risk of the swings, we have seen attacks on our state-based insurance regulations. [2:06:16] The CFPB, I think, has the opportunity to continue to build clear jurisdictional boundaries in this space. [2:06:24] Is that something you're thinking about or looking at at the CFPB? [2:06:27] We're not looking to invade the regulatory space of the insurance markets. [2:06:33] That's something that is very entirely not ours. [2:06:36] I appreciate that. [2:06:37] I think that's right. [2:06:38] I think we're well served by our state-based insurance program. [2:06:42] There's a lot of talk earlier about the actions to continue to root out waste, fraud, and abuse inside and the great work that's being done inside this administration. [2:06:51] Vice President J.D. Vance, Chair of the President's Fraud Task Force, was in Wisconsin recently, joined by Dr. Oz. [2:06:58] There are big opportunities to continue to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. [2:07:03] We heard some comments from some of my colleagues. [2:07:05] Can you just comment broadly about the successful work that we are doing and that, in particular, the Trump administration is doing in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in some of our federal programs? [2:07:15] Well, the president has made it an all-of-government effort, and certainly the vice president is running the task force in ensuring that there are no bureaucratic hurdles to ensuring that we have the resources to go after it with investigations and CMS to pool the IG community to make sure that we're enforcing, even if there might be a reluctance on some fraud cases, to not take it because it might be viewed in small amounts. [2:07:42] But we've taken the reverse view. [2:07:45] We've taken that kind of a broken-windows approach to fraud that I think is going to pay huge dividends, and we're learning what statutory reforms are going to be needed for you all to come along and give us additional tools. [2:07:55] I appreciate that because I think that's really significant. [2:07:58] Actually, it makes me reflect back on the vice president's visit to Milwaukee. [2:08:02] We were highlighting a specific case of $15 million of fraud. [2:08:07] And one of the reporters asked, you know, it's a drop in the bucket, it's just $15 million. [2:08:12] And that is a really dangerous approach that we have seen some of our federal agencies historically take, in particular in the Biden administration. [2:08:20] And appreciate you and the administration, the approach of making sure that we're actually holding people accountable for wasting taxpayer dollars. [2:08:28] There's significant waste, fraud, and abuse in a lot of these programs. [2:08:32] And holding individuals accountable and making sure that individuals know that they're going to be actually held to account, that they're going to actually have to pay a price for stealing from taxpayers, but also from stealing from the individuals who these programs were designed to help. [2:08:45] And so I appreciate all of your work, not only the CFPB, but at the OMB writ large. [2:08:50] Appreciate you being here and testifying today. [2:08:52] And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [2:08:54] The gentleman yields back. [2:08:55] The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan. [2:08:57] Ms. Tlaib, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:09:00] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. [2:09:02] Director Vogt, is it true or false that your agency has dismissed and terminated more than 40 lawsuits and settlements against predatory companies? [2:09:11] These were not predatory companies. [2:09:14] Yeah, yeah. [2:09:15] Are you friends with Capital One? [2:09:16] With Capital One? [2:09:17] No, I don't know. [2:09:18] Walmart? [2:09:19] No. [2:09:21] Zelle? [2:09:22] No. [2:09:23] You reversed even settlements against Toyota, Navy Federal, Bank of America. [2:09:25] Would you like to know why? [2:09:26] Oh, sure. [2:09:27] Because it looks like the past directors, you're getting so defensive. [2:09:32] You're not friends with them. [2:09:33] I wanted to make sure it wasn't personal. [2:09:35] You're not friends with them, right? [2:09:36] It's a direct question. [2:09:37] Who do you work for? [2:09:38] Director. [2:09:39] The President of the United States. [2:09:40] No. [2:09:42] You work for the people of the United States. [2:09:45] You do not work for the president. [2:09:48] You have legislation and laws that we pass as elected body members here. [2:09:53] You do not work for the president. [2:09:55] Wrong. [2:09:57] You take an oath to the people of this country and we pass laws that you are supposed to enforce. [2:10:05] You do not work for the president. [2:10:06] So that's probably why you. [2:10:09] I think the founding fathers would have a different view, Congresswoman. [2:10:13] Oh, I am so glad this is on record. [2:10:16] You should be fired. [2:10:17] Me too. [2:10:18] Because you work for the people, not the president. [2:10:20] None of us work for the president. [2:10:22] The president won an election democratically. [2:10:24] I understand. [2:10:25] Hey, I'm not. [2:10:26] They put him in office. [2:10:27] I actually don't contest that like you all do. [2:10:28] Now, is it true these cases and others dropped lawsuits could have returned hundreds of millions [2:10:33] of dollars to consumers? [2:10:35] They could have also set terrible regulatory initiative and enforcement decisions. [2:10:39] I'd like to enter into the record, Director Vogt, a memo, Chairman, from the Protect Borrowers, [2:10:45] the Consumer Federation of America and Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. [2:10:49] Because I want the American people to see all the lawsuits you filed. [2:10:52] Without objection. [2:10:53] You decided. [2:10:54] You didn't file. [2:10:55] You actually decided not to pursue those losses. [2:10:58] And, Mr. Chair, it's important for the American people to know this. [2:11:02] Is it true or false before 2005, CFPB only dropped one enforcement action and never terminated [2:11:09] a settlement? [2:11:10] I actually don't know. [2:11:11] What's the answer? [2:11:12] You don't know because you think that you work for the president. [2:11:14] You actually don't see what the agency was created for. [2:11:17] Why do you think the agency was created because of the president? [2:11:19] Because Congress created the agency because of the awful financial distress that had happened [2:11:27] on our American people. [2:11:28] You can blink your eyes all you want. [2:11:29] Last year, Americans lost roughly $16 billion to fraud. [2:11:33] 25% increase from 2024. [2:11:37] On your watch. [2:11:38] The highest level on record. [2:11:40] On your watch. [2:11:41] In fact, CFPB has received more consumer complaints in 14 months than in the first 14 years [2:11:47] of its existence. [2:11:48] Your watch. [2:11:49] Director Ville, do you think it's just a coincidence that consumer complaints have reached an all-time [2:11:55] high at the very same time that your agency has pulled back enforcement and dropped cases, [2:12:01] cut staff and revoked guidance? [2:12:03] There's a marked reason for what is going on that we've addressed. [2:12:06] Because you're friends with Bank of America? [2:12:07] Walmart? [2:12:08] Zelle? [2:12:09] Are you friends with them? [2:12:10] Do you work for them? [2:12:12] I'm saying this because you dropped all these lawsuits. [2:12:14] These lawsuits didn't come out of thin air. [2:12:15] It's because they did wrong. [2:12:16] They were novel legal theories that were not based on the issue. [2:12:19] Oh, novelty. [2:12:20] So all those complaints from our residents are novelty? [2:12:23] They're not real? [2:12:24] No, that's the consumer portal of which we look at very closely and take steps to make [2:12:27] sure we know what's going on. [2:12:28] I know you're not going to take responsibilities. [2:12:30] Because, look, the loan sharks, Wall Street, mega banks, and I'm telling you, it is killing [2:12:35] all of our residents. [2:12:36] Because they are, you've basically sent a note, you know, like a signal out there. [2:12:42] Go ahead. [2:12:43] You're undermining. [2:12:44] They're like, you signal to the scammers and fraudsters out there, you know, the fraudsters. [2:12:48] Open season for our residents. [2:12:49] Go for it. [2:12:50] Go ahead and violate their consumer protections that we, the Congress passed, not the President, [2:12:55] the Congress passed and created this agency. [2:12:58] In May, CFPB deleted more than 2,000 pages from its website. [2:13:03] These include consumer advisories. [2:13:06] Nope. [2:13:07] Blog posts. [2:13:08] You didn't do it? [2:13:09] Nope. [2:13:10] You didn't do it. [2:13:11] Nope. [2:13:12] We overhauled our website. [2:13:13] Okay, Russell. [2:13:14] You went into Congressional mandated consumer protection mission by removing consumer education [2:13:18] and other materials from its website. [2:13:20] We did not remove materials from the website. [2:13:22] We put it in an archive section of the website. [2:13:24] So you didn't remove the Know Your Rights. [2:13:25] You archived the Know Your Rights for veterans? [2:13:27] You archived it? [2:13:28] We archived the policies of- [2:13:29] You archived the Know Your Rights, Russell, for veterans. [2:13:33] You guys can get upset all you want. [2:13:36] He doesn't work for the President. [2:13:38] He doesn't work for Zelle or Walmart. [2:13:40] He works for the people of the United States. [2:13:42] Romance fraud is up there. [2:13:44] You can laugh all you want, but that targets our seniors. [2:13:48] Shame on you. [2:13:50] Really. [2:13:51] On your watch, complaints are up. [2:13:52] You literally took money away from pockets of our residents. [2:13:55] You can blink all you want. [2:13:57] Your legacy will be the fact that people got hurt under your watch because you think you [2:14:01] worked for the President and not the people. [2:14:02] The gentleman's time has expired, and the Chair recognizes the Chair of our Subcommittee [2:14:05] on Oversight and Investigations. [2:14:07] Mr. Muser of Pennsylvania, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:14:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:14:11] Thank you, Director. [2:14:12] And some apologies for the pejoratives, the hysteria. [2:14:18] When there's no evidence or facts, very often people resort to name-calling. [2:14:23] And they will fight like hell, as we know, for their big government, unrestricted, one-party [2:14:29] socialist plan. [2:14:30] But we have laws, we have the Constitution, and I think we and the American people are [2:14:35] going to stop them. [2:14:37] CFPB had gross, under Chopra, under the previous administration, gross and illegal, I believe [2:14:44] illegal, overreach. [2:14:45] I'd like to enter on the record an article from the ABA President titled the CFPB, a regulator [2:14:52] gone rogue. [2:14:53] In it, he states the Biden-Chopra CFPB promoted a red-tape-laced regulatory nanny state that [2:15:00] threatened to debank millions of hardworking Americans by pushing them out of the banking [2:15:04] system. [2:15:05] Without objection, that would be included in the record. [2:15:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:15:08] And, you know, no matter how much you look for evidence for promotion of the previous [2:15:13] CFPB, you can't find any. [2:15:14] The only one you can find is when you have the hysteria and the hostility of stating how [2:15:20] wonderful they are, when meanwhile, it was all about overreach, which was well beyond [2:15:26] what their jurisdiction was. [2:15:28] So, when they issued, and you revoked under this administration, 67 guidance documents, [2:15:35] eight policy statements, seven interpretive rules, 13 advisory opinions, which community [2:15:40] banks, large and small, and big banks, thought were outrageous but tended to follow, thinking [2:15:47] they'd get in trouble from that previous Biden administration and the previous CFPB. [2:15:53] When you revoked all of those, those compliance burdens, why was this action absolutely necessary? [2:15:59] Well, we believe deregulation, where it is good for the country, for the economy, for [2:16:05] consumers, where it can lead to innovation, is the right policy direction to pursue. [2:16:12] And we were very proud to be able to, the president had given a goal of 10 for one deregulatory [2:16:18] initiatives to everyone. [2:16:20] And we were able to hit 67, and we're very thrilled with that. [2:16:24] And that was one of the key parts of the first year. [2:16:27] Okay. [2:16:28] And you're aware we issued the Safe Guidance Act to assure banks that such guidance letters [2:16:34] from a rogue CFPB director are not law. [2:16:38] Do you think that was helpful, will be helpful? [2:16:40] We should not be regulating them with guidance. [2:16:43] Guidance is something that agencies have long used to avoid notice and comment. [2:16:48] And as a result, the country doesn't have a chance to participate in articulating their concerns. [2:16:52] The previous CFPB was sued by eight different trade groups, banks, credit unions, online lenders, [2:16:58] small businesses, represent the entirety of the financial service industry. [2:17:02] That's quite a pattern of evidence showing that they were beyond their statutory authority. [2:17:08] Wouldn't you agree? [2:17:09] Yes. [2:17:10] The resource and employees under CFPB have shrunk since January 2025. [2:17:20] It's close. [2:17:21] 76% of its open supervisory actions are resolved to dismiss the large majority of its enforcement [2:17:27] cases. [2:17:28] What has a smaller, more disciplined bureau been able to get done compared to what the prior, [2:17:32] larger, very broad scoped bureau actually produced? [2:17:37] Well, we're both continuing our supervision and enforcement responsibilities, and we've [2:17:42] been very set on not doing regulation by enforcement and dismissing cases that were either duplicative [2:17:50] of a state regulator or there was not a grounds in statute to be for us to have taken the original [2:17:55] action as an agency. [2:17:56] And CFPB was not alone. [2:17:58] The SBA, for instance, you know, a tidy, tight organization advocating for small businesses [2:18:05] with immense responsibilities doubled in size during the course of the Biden administration. [2:18:12] And I bring that up because just to show the bloatedness of where our government was going to go [2:18:18] and where it would go again, it went from 1,700 employees basically to almost 5,000. [2:18:24] Now we brought it back to 2,200 under Secretary Loeffler. [2:18:30] Are you seeing such efficiencies that have occurred there? [2:18:34] And by the way, the number of business loans have doubled since the last year, the Biden administration [2:18:40] of 2024 and into 2025, 2026, just over a year's period. [2:18:45] So at the CFPB, we have gone from about $800 million spent in 2024 to right now we're about [2:18:53] $465 million. [2:18:54] We could go lower, but we're under a court order that does not allow us to go under. [2:18:59] Thank you. [2:19:00] So our view is that the long-term steady state should be $357 million per year. [2:19:07] And then you've certainly helped that by passing legislation to lower our cap. [2:19:12] The gentleman's time has expired. [2:19:14] I yield, Mr. Chairman. [2:19:15] The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York. [2:19:17] Mr. Torres, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:19:19] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [2:19:21] Mr. Vought, you have repeatedly asserted that the president has the constitutional authority [2:19:28] to impound funds appropriated by Congress. [2:19:30] And so I have a few questions about your theory of presidential impoundment. [2:19:34] Under your theory, could the president refuse to spend 100% of the funds Congress appropriates [2:19:41] for the Department of Defense? [2:19:42] I don't engage in hypotheticals, Congressman. [2:19:45] The president has articulated a view that I agree with. [2:19:48] That for 200 years, presidents had the ability to spend less than the appropriation. [2:19:53] And none of those. [2:19:54] I'm going to move on to my next question. [2:19:55] Could the president refuse to spend 100% of the funds Congress appropriates for the Supreme Court? [2:20:00] And again, in those 200 years of presidents using those. [2:20:04] Is that a yes or no? [2:20:05] None of those presidents did what you just said. [2:20:08] Is that a yes? [2:20:09] I'm asking if the president could do it. [2:20:10] I'm not answering your yes or no question. [2:20:12] Could the president refuse to make 100% of the entitlement payments Congress has mandated [2:20:18] under programs like Social Security and Medicaid? [2:20:20] Could he impound those funds? [2:20:21] The impound authorities are not relevant in the entitlement category. [2:20:24] Does the word impoundment appear anywhere in the Constitution? [2:20:27] No, it does not. [2:20:30] The founding fathers were familiar with the concept of impoundment. [2:20:33] And if the founders had intended to give the president the power of impoundment, [2:20:38] they would have said so explicitly. [2:20:40] These were not shy men. [2:20:41] Can you cite a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the president has the constitutional [2:20:46] authority to impound funds? [2:20:47] The Supreme Court has actually never spoken on this matter. [2:20:50] You're wrong. [2:20:51] I'm not. [2:20:52] In Kendall versus United States, 1838. [2:20:54] Here's an exact quote. [2:20:55] To contend that the obligation imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully executed [2:21:00] implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution and entirely admissible, inadmissible. [2:21:09] So it looks like the Supreme Court did speak on the topic 187 years before Project 2025. [2:21:17] In the spirit of originalism, I want to share some history with you. [2:21:21] The British monarchy once had a version of the power of impoundment. [2:21:24] It was called the suspending power. [2:21:26] But the crown lost the power to suspend laws, including spending laws, under the English Bill of Rights in 1689. [2:21:34] The American Revolution, as you know, was fought to overthrow the tyranny of the British monarchy. [2:21:39] Is it seriously your position that the founding fathers intended to grant a president like Donald Trump empowerment powers that the British monarch himself did not possess when the American people overthrew him 250 years ago? [2:21:53] Is that your position? [2:21:54] The founding fathers themselves spent less than the appropriations that they were given for 200 years. [2:22:01] I'm asking about empowerment. [2:22:02] You have a theory of presidential empowerment that would make Donald Trump more powerful than the 18th century British monarch that we overthrew. [2:22:10] That's not true. [2:22:11] It is absolutely true. [2:22:12] What I would suggest is that you study the 200 years of experience under presidents who had the ability to not shove the money out the door at the end of the fiscal year just because it had to be spent. [2:22:25] I want to move on. [2:22:26] Like many in your party, you suffer from CFPB derangement syndrome. [2:22:30] And having you serve as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a bit like having a pope who doesn't believe in Catholicism. [2:22:38] It's an absurdity. [2:22:39] And let's be honest, Mr. Vogt, you weren't appointed by Donald Trump to run the CFPB. [2:22:43] You were appointed to sabotage it in lockstep with Project 2025. [2:22:48] During the first term of the Trump administration, the CFPB undertook 12 enforcement actions in 2018, 21 actions in 2019 and 62 actions in 2020. [2:23:01] By contrast, the CFPB in 2025 has undertaken almost no enforcement actions. [2:23:07] And so even by the standards of the first Trump administration, enforcement has all but collapsed. [2:23:13] And the CFPB under your leadership has been an absentee regulator. [2:23:18] I want to move on to cybersecurity. [2:23:23] We live in a world where the Chinese Communist Party could develop an open source equivalent of mythos, which has been portrayed as a cyber weapon of mass destruction. [2:23:32] A CCP equivalent of mythos would pose an existential threat to the cybersecurity of the federal government. [2:23:39] Would you agree with that? [2:23:40] I'm going to let someone else comment on those matters. [2:23:42] So you're not aware of current events like I mean, it's pretty important. [2:23:45] So in October 2025, the Office of Inspector General issued a scathing assessment downgrading the CFPB's information security maturity from level four to level two, from effective to ineffective. [2:23:59] And so not only are you failing to deliver dollars to American consumers, you are endangering the sensitive information of the American people to the benefits of foreign adversaries like the CCP. [2:24:10] The Inspector General gave you a level two for cybersecurity. [2:24:13] I give you an F for failing the American people. [2:24:16] I yield back. [2:24:17] The gentleman yields back. [2:24:18] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. [2:24:21] Ms. Kim, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:24:24] Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member for hosting today's hearing. [2:24:27] And thank you, Mr. Vogt, for joining us. [2:24:29] As you know, I've long been supporting and championing the Community Development Financial Institution Fund. [2:24:38] And in my district, California 48 in Southern California, I saw firsthand the impact of CDFI funds when I visited Vera Sanctuary. [2:24:48] This is a licensed residential treatment center that dedicate to helping the victims of human trafficking. [2:24:57] And they tell us that they would not exist without the funds from CDFI financial institutions. [2:25:05] And this is the same thing that I'm hearing over and over across Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties that I'm privileged to represent. [2:25:13] And I heard countless stories like that about the valuable impact CDFI Fund has in lifting or lifting up the American families. [2:25:23] So I want to thank you for working with me and Treasury Secretary Scott Basson to secure the release of some of the funds to the Treasury so that CDFI Fund can distribute them before the expiration date. [2:25:39] That's that's coming up. But as we continue to build on the 21st Century Road to Housing Act and work on housing affordability, there is still considerable amount of housing construction funds that is available under the capital magnet fund. [2:25:57] I'm sure you're aware of that. So can you provide any details as to when the recipients can expect those funds to be distributed? [2:26:05] I'm happy to go back to you, come back to you on that matter. As you know, we've apportioned all the CDFI funds that will expire in 26. But we'll give you more detail below that. [2:26:15] Well, how we can continue to work together on seeking reforms at the CDFI Fund so we can ensure that those funds can be released in a timely and efficient manner so we can allow the financial institutions to be able to utilize those funds and uplift the American working families as we mentioned. [2:26:35] Another avenue that I've been working to uplift the American families is through the small dollar credit. Millions of Americans rely on those products to breach the temporary financial shortfalls or cover the unexpected expenses or avoid more costly alternatives. [2:26:54] So while that's important that consumers are protected from their unfair or abusive practices, it is equally important that responsible lenders have a clear and consistent regulatory framework that enables them to continue offering lawful affordable credit products. [2:27:12] So to that end, as you know, I introduced the Small Dollar Loan Certainty Act to seek the greater certainty regarding the legal standards governing these products so that responsible providers can continue serving consumers while maintaining strong consumer protections. [2:27:30] So can you discuss how greater regulatory certainty for responsible small dollar lending can improve consumer access to affordable credit while we are still identifying and addressing the genuinely Humphrey practices that the CFPB can identify? [2:27:48] Well, Congressman, I think these can be very innovative tools that meet people where they are and in need for financing. [2:27:56] We have a small dollar rule on our regulatory agenda. [2:28:01] We look to get to that. We hope to get to that as soon as possible. [2:28:04] And I'm happy to look at your legislation as to better understand what it might do. [2:28:08] Thank you. [2:28:09] Thank you. [2:28:10] One of the most effective ways to protect consumers is to prevent harm before it occurs. [2:28:15] Where enforcement plays an important role, consumers also benefit when they receive clear information that helps them make informed decisions to avoid fraud in the first place. [2:28:26] So, Director Vogt, how is the CFPB balancing enforcement with efforts to improve consumer financial education and prevent consumer fraud or harm? [2:28:35] Well, we have a very active financial literacy program. [2:28:39] We're going across the country having webinars pretty much constantly. [2:28:43] We've had an emphasis in our supervision and enforcement for self-reporting, for remediation, reconciliation before we get to the adversarial part of the process. [2:28:54] So we believe that from the education all throughout is an important cycle to have properly gone through so that we limit fraud in the future. [2:29:03] Thank you. Thank you for saying that because I serve as co-chair of the Financial Literacy and Wealth Creation Caucus. [2:29:08] And we need to do everything we can. [2:29:10] So I want to partner with you and CFPB so we can focus on consumer education in the remaining time. [2:29:18] I'm not sure if we have. [2:29:19] But could you share the work you are doing to combat fraud and scams and how you have worked with financial institutions to that end? [2:29:26] I'll invite you to submit that in writing, Mr. Director. [2:29:29] Thank you. [2:29:31] The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Liccardo, for five minutes. [2:29:36] Thank you. [2:29:37] Good morning, Mr. Boat. [2:29:39] During your testimony, you testified, and I'm just quoting here from your written statement, that the purpose of the bureau is to implement and enforce federal consumer financial law consistently so that all consumers have access to markets and that such markets are fair, transparent and competitive. [2:29:57] Is that fair? [2:29:58] Yes. [2:29:59] So are all financial markets currently fair, transparent and competitive? [2:30:05] We believe that it's important to make them more fair. [2:30:09] I mean, that's why you have laws in the books. [2:30:11] And so if you see something, say something. [2:30:13] We take the portal very seriously. [2:30:15] We look for things as part of supervision to identify and do our job to make things more transparent, more fair wherever we can. [2:30:24] Do you think it's likely that markets are less than fair, less than transparent, less than competitive as we think about, for example, payday lending? [2:30:33] Well, I think that the industry is an important one, and I think it's important for consumers to have the access to products that are not predatory, that allow people to get loans when they need to get those loans. [2:30:49] And I think it should be cheap to do that and to have good rules of the road so that industry abides by them. [2:30:55] Do you think there are some scams in payday lending in that industry? [2:30:57] I think there's scams in many different industries. [2:31:00] Are there scams in the title loan industry? [2:31:02] Perhaps. [2:31:05] Are there scams in the private student lender industry? [2:31:09] Perhaps. [2:31:10] You think there might be scammers in the debt collection industry? [2:31:14] Yes. [2:31:15] And what about the credit repair industry? [2:31:17] Certainly. [2:31:18] And digital wallets and payment apps? [2:31:21] You think there's some scams there? [2:31:22] I think it remains to be clear, but potentially. [2:31:26] So it seems like in a nation of more than 300 million people with massive number of actors in these financial industries, that there might be a target rich environment for enforcement to uphold the bureau's role to ensure that markets are, quote, fair, transparent and competitive. [2:31:47] Is that fair? [2:31:48] I think a view of a target rich environment assumes that consumers don't make decisions in their best interests and assumes that all businesses are predatory. [2:31:58] We're going to look for opportunities to enforce the law and supervise companies. [2:32:01] Since the time you took over CFPB, there's been exactly one enforcement action. [2:32:07] We are engaged in five enforcement actions. [2:32:10] You filed only one. [2:32:12] Okay. [2:32:15] There are others that you continue from the prior administration. [2:32:18] Correct. [2:32:19] And you've indicated an intent to continue the enforcement of only single digits, less than 10 of those. [2:32:27] Is that fair? [2:32:29] We are continuing those cases. [2:32:31] They remain priorities. [2:32:32] We feel to think there are good reasons for them and we're continuing. [2:32:35] And so among all the industries I named, plus many others that CFPB might have jurisdiction over, given the jurisdiction provided under federal statute, your agency has initiated exactly one enforcement action in your tenure. [2:32:53] Well, we had an enormous pile up of cases that we thought were inappropriate that we had to work through. [2:33:00] We set forward new enforcement and supervision guidance and we are now hard at work in that area. [2:33:08] But if you're saying we would prefer a less adversarial process, you're right. [2:33:12] You have hundreds of millions of consumers in all these industries that you need to protect and you filed exactly one enforcement action under your tenure? [2:33:21] That doesn't mean that we are not taking steps to work with a company that we see evidence in the newspaper to decide what's going on with that company. [2:33:31] We reach out to your written testimony indicates that you condemn a bureau driven by, quote, whims of ideologues. [2:33:38] You've been in charge of this agency for more than a year, nearly a year and a half. [2:33:47] And exactly one enforcement action has been brought against all these actors across all these financial industries. [2:33:55] Aren't you an ideologue? [2:33:57] Absolutely not, sir. [2:33:58] I think the American people would disagree as I would. [2:34:02] Thank you. [2:34:03] The gentleman yields back. [2:34:06] The gentleman yields back. [2:34:08] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, for five minutes. [2:34:14] Director, thanks for being here this morning. [2:34:16] I appreciate it. [2:34:17] I think one of the concerns that many members have is now that we've kind of watched the actions that you've taken to clean up the CFPB, complete disaster, that they often relied on kind of vague, [2:34:32] statutory authority regulation by enforcement and these large expansive interpretations of the powers instead of actually having some clear rules and limits in place. [2:34:49] So I think my concern is moving forward that restoring kind of the legal clarity and the procedural fairness means not only kind of defining the CFPB's authorities more clearly, [2:35:04] it also means making sure that they were within the proper jurisdiction, right? [2:35:09] So I have a bill to my own horn here, but restoring court authority over litigation act reflects that the principles by clarifying that conduct of attorneys in litigation is regulated by the courts and not the CFPB. [2:35:25] I mean, it seems it seems very obvious, I think, when you look at it from the perspective of the actions that you guys have already taken to fix things over there. [2:35:34] But just just one question then. [2:35:38] How important is it for Congress to establish kind of the clear jurisdictional boundaries so that in the future? [2:35:45] In the future? [2:35:46] I'm worried about the future? [2:35:47] I'm worried about a sliding back to this onerous, ridiculous agency. [2:35:52] We've got to do something to put something a little bit more clear when it comes to enforcement authority and effectively so you can regulate the practice of law outside of the judicial system. [2:36:06] So I'm just wondering kind of your overall comments on that topic. [2:36:11] I think clear boundaries need to be set by Congress to ensure that in a future administration, the CFPB can't grow and be in the novel statutory theory space, which is one of the main areas that it was doing with regard to its enforcement activities. [2:36:27] Yeah. [2:36:28] And so you as you work through this again, which I said, I appreciate somebody's cleaning up this mess. [2:36:34] But as you work through this, I think it would be something at least to keep in mind that in the future that Congress have at least some direction on. [2:36:44] Here's the things we need to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again. [2:36:48] So and with that, I yield a yield back, Chairman. [2:36:51] Chairman yields back. [2:36:52] Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas. [2:36:58] Ms. Garcia, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:37:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:37:02] I apologize for having to step out, but I've been dealing with issues related to an ice shooting in my district last week in Houston. [2:37:11] So actor director acting director Boyd, you have sent out a letter notices to members of your staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau directing them to either relocate to D.C. [2:37:26] or lose their jobs. [2:37:30] They have until July 21st next week to decide. [2:37:32] How many bureau employees do you currently have? [2:37:35] We have 1071, interestingly enough. [2:37:38] 1071. [2:37:39] And how many employees can be accommodated in your new headquarters? [2:37:43] About 500. [2:37:44] So do you expect to have two or three people on top of each other? [2:37:51] Or how are you going to accommodate 1071 in a space that holds roughly 550? [2:37:58] Well, there may be some rotational assignments as to how the space is allocated. [2:38:06] But to answer your question, I think more fundamentally, we have put that on pause to wait for the Senate to confirm hopefully the nominee so that they can make that determination. [2:38:16] It will also come in conjunction with the court proceedings with regard to our reductions in force. [2:38:21] Is that is that something you're acting on as acting director of CFPB or was that your head as head of OMB? [2:38:31] The early acting director of CFPB. [2:38:34] Yes, sir. [2:38:35] It seems to me, you know, I don't see how you can wear two hats and separate some of these issues. [2:38:42] But so roughly half of your employees may not be able to be accommodated in the new headquarters. [2:38:47] How many have responded to your letter? [2:38:49] Well, we've had a number of requests to have an exemption to the policy. [2:38:54] Some of them have good ideas. [2:38:56] If you're working on a litigation in Denver, we're not going to ask you to come back to D.C. [2:39:01] The question was how many have responded to your letter? [2:39:04] Off the top of my head, I don't know. [2:39:05] I know you're telling me you put a pause, but obviously some people may have still responded to your letter. [2:39:10] And we have those in place and we're certainly can provide that. [2:39:13] The question is how many people have responded to your letter? [2:39:16] I said I don't know off the top of my head and I'm happy to provide that in a QFR. [2:39:20] Well, because it seems clear to me that between this and the halt of certain enforcement activity, regulation and guidance rollbacks, [2:39:27] employee administrative leave and the overall significant reduction in size of the workforce, [2:39:32] you and the White House are trying to close the only government agency intended to protect our consumers. [2:39:40] And I disagree that this bureau was a disaster. [2:39:47] It's not a disaster. It is a lifeline. [2:39:50] It is a lifeline for our seniors, our veterans and people that have been that often are scammed either personally in writing [2:39:58] and more importantly now through the Internet and through emails. [2:40:03] So, Director Boyd, a recent semiannual report published by the CFPB found that women employees of color remain underrepresented in key roles like economists and examiners. [2:40:13] The recent actions taken at CFPB including leadership changes, hiring freezes and rollbacks of DEI initiatives are only as aspirating this. [2:40:23] How do you respond to these concerns? [2:40:25] We believe that our employees should be there on the basis of merit and we have a color blind employee process. [2:40:30] So you think that people of color have no merit? [2:40:32] No, I said that we have an employee process of hiring that is based on merit and ensuring that everyone, regardless of who they are, have an opportunity to come and work at CFPB. [2:40:45] Okay. And again, do you have any evidence to convince me that the decisions that you're making at the bureau are really about things that are the better or good for the protection of the consumer rights of our citizens around the country? [2:40:59] And not solely influenced by you as OMB director? [2:41:03] Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at. [2:41:05] Well, again, sir, you wear two hats. [2:41:07] Okay. [2:41:08] When you make your statements about the staffing issues, are you speaking as the CFPB director or are you speaking as OMB director? [2:41:17] Yes, the CFPB FTE level was bloated. [2:41:20] Director Chopra increased enforcement by 100 FTEs. [2:41:22] But the question was not about bloating, sir. [2:41:24] The question was about reductions, reductions in the scope of work conducted in the workforce. [2:41:30] Like I said, Director Chopra increased the FTEs in enforcement alone by 100. [2:41:37] Have you transferred any of the bureau's work, roles, responsibilities, mission, any of it to any other agency in the government? [2:41:51] No. [2:41:52] We were under discussions when it was clear we may go to operating at zero level because of the way the law was written and their ability to take a draw. [2:42:00] So nothing has been transferred. [2:42:01] The gentleman's time has expired. [2:42:03] The general lady from California has a unanimous consent request. [2:42:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:42:07] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record. [2:42:11] Seven letters have sent to the witness that have gone unanswered. [2:42:16] Without objection, they'll be included in the record. [2:42:18] I would also ask consent to enter into the record statements and letters from dozens of organizations in strong support of the CFPB, [2:42:27] as well as those that highlight all the ways our witnesses, our witness as unlawfully undermine the agency's ability to protect consumers, [2:42:38] including from American Financial Reform, Better Markets, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, National Association of Consumer Advocates, [2:42:49] and many other organizations, including state and local groups across the country. [2:42:54] Without objection, they'll all be made part of the record. [2:42:56] The chair now recognizes the chairman of our subcommittee on Housing and Insurance. [2:43:03] Mr. Flood, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:43:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:43:07] Acting Director Vogt, thank you for being here today. [2:43:09] I had a lot of disagreements with your predecessor, Director Chopra. [2:43:13] Among them was Director Chopra's tendency to expand the CFPB's jurisdictional reach at every turn. [2:43:20] For example, the CFPB issued a rulemaking in late 2024 defining digital consumer payment technology entities as, quote unquote, [2:43:28] larger participants and therefore subject to CFPB supervision. [2:43:33] I led a Congressional Review Act resolution overturning that move, [2:43:36] and I'm proud to say that it was signed by President Trump into law in May of 2025. [2:43:41] That move was one of many that the former director made to try and expand his own authority, his own agency's reach, and the bureaucracy of the CFPB with it. [2:43:51] By contrast, during this administration, the CFPB released proposals indicating they may redefine what constitutes a larger participant in several non-bank financial markets. [2:44:02] I appreciate that CFPB is doing thoughtful work on which entities truly deserve to fall within their remit, [2:44:08] rather than instinctually pushing to expand its own authority. [2:44:11] In most other areas of federal law, agencies evaluating market participants generally begin with a clearly defined relevant product market [2:44:20] before determining whether a firm possesses sufficient market share to warrant heightened regulatory scrutiny. [2:44:26] This is one of the issues that we attempt to address in the draft CFPB comprehensive reform package. [2:44:32] Acting Director Vogt, do you believe the CFPB's large market participant framework should seek to more power? [2:44:38] precisely defined relevant markets and ensure that only firms with a significant share of those markets are subject to heightened supervision? [2:44:47] Yes, and I would encourage Congress to actually do the work to put it into statute. [2:44:51] I think your hard work on that CRA indicates the degree of skepticism that I think that CFPB can do it well, [2:44:58] and I would certainly appreciate additional guidance from Congress. [2:45:02] Thank you. Next, I'd like to run through some of the reforms proposed by the chairman of this committee. [2:45:08] to right-size the agency. [2:45:11] Director Vogt, do you believe that the CFPB would receive better oversight if it were funded through the regular appropriations process? [2:45:17] A hundred percent. [2:45:18] Acting Director Vogt, do you believe the CFPB would generally undertake better, more defensible rulemaking [2:45:23] if the Bureau's statutory cost-benefit analysis requirements were strengthened? [2:45:27] Yes. [2:45:28] Acting Director Vogt, do you believe that the CFPB should have an independent inspector general just like almost every other federal agency? [2:45:35] Yes. [2:45:36] Acting Director Vogt, do you believe as the draft legislation calls for that there should be a rulemaking more firmly defining what an abusive act or practice is in order to provide greater clarity to market players on what rules they must abide by? [2:45:51] Well, it's certainly a possibility to do it as a regulation. I would prefer Congress to spell it out more clearly. [2:45:56] Acting Director Vogt, do you believe the CFPB should be able to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in unallocated balances in their civil penalty fund to be used as a slush fund? [2:46:05] Or do you believe those funds should be transferred back to the Treasury once the victims of any wrongdoing are paid? [2:46:12] Once the victims of wrongdoing, but I also think that there's a role for there to be some balance to ensure that you have the fund to be able to pay when a particular entity has no more money and to be able to provide redress in that instance. [2:46:27] So in terms of the timing, I'd want to look carefully on that. [2:46:30] Thank you for your answers, Acting Director Vogt. [2:46:33] I appreciate your time today and believe that together we can move towards a CFPB that is more accountable in the future and appreciate your service to our country. [2:46:41] I yield back the balance of my time. [2:46:43] Flood yields back the chair now recognizes the ranking member of our subcommittee on oversight and investigations. [2:46:48] Mr. Green of Texas, you're recognized for five minutes. [2:46:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:46:52] I thank the witness for appearing today. [2:46:54] Mr. Vogt, I'm reviewing your website and there's an indication that you will receive complaints and if another agency is better suited to assist, you will send those complaints to this other agency. [2:47:09] Is this a fair statement? [2:47:11] I think that's fair. [2:47:13] All right. [2:47:14] And do you maintain records on the complaints that you receive, sir? [2:47:18] We maintain all the records of the consumer portal. [2:47:22] We're taking great steps to ration. [2:47:24] I'll take that as a yes. [2:47:25] And in so doing, if you received a complaint about a Ponzi scheme, you would send that complaint to the appropriate agency? [2:47:36] If we did not have statutory authority, yes. [2:47:40] Okay. [2:47:41] Well, let's just review what a Ponzi scheme is quickly. [2:47:44] A Ponzi scheme, according to Wicca Investopedia, is a fraudulent investment scam that pays returns to earlier investors using capital collected from new investors rather than from any actual business profit named after 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. [2:48:02] The scheme creates a false illusion of a highly profitable enterprise to continuously lure in fresh capital. [2:48:12] A Ponzi scheme. [2:48:14] Let's talk about a Ponzi scheme that has made the news as of late. [2:48:19] Over a one year period, President Trump's dollar sign Trump pump and dump meme coin has averaged about $1.7 million in profits per day. [2:48:33] 1.74 million in profits per day. [2:48:37] Over that same period of time, investors lost a combined $3.8 billion, $3.8 billion. [2:48:46] This kind of Ponzi scheme has been reported to you. [2:48:54] Can you give me at some point the number of complaints you've received about the president of the United States of America and his Ponzi scheme? [2:49:03] Congressman, I'm not going to speak to the president's investments other than to say this administration has had the highest… [2:49:08] Without going into his investments, I want to know about complaints that you've received. [2:49:12] You said you received the complaints. [2:49:14] Can you just give me information about the complaints you've received? [2:49:17] That is public information, isn't it? [2:49:19] I don't have that at my fingertips. [2:49:21] I know you don't have it at your fingertips. [2:49:22] The question is whether you give it to me now. [2:49:25] That is unreasonable. [2:49:26] I said I'm happy to respond to QFRs on all matters. [2:49:30] Okay. [2:49:31] Well, I don't know what response means. [2:49:32] Is that a yes you'll give me the complaints? [2:49:34] You'll let me know the number? [2:49:35] I don't know what you're referring to. [2:49:36] I'm referring to complaints about the president of the United States of America who made $1.74 million per day while other persons were losing billions of dollars. [2:49:46] $3.8 billion over the same period of time that he was making $1.74 million per day. [2:49:52] I'd like to know the number of complaints that you've received as they relate to… [2:49:57] Let's take out the term president. [2:49:59] As they relate to Donald John Trump. [2:50:02] I said I would refer… [2:50:05] I would respond to any of the QFRs that you might have when I don't have the information in front of me. [2:50:10] That would be unreasonable. [2:50:12] I would not expect you to have it in front of you, sir. [2:50:14] Now, before I conclude, I want to associate myself with the statements of the ranking member and also Mr. Vargas. [2:50:23] I heard his statements and I conclude with this. [2:50:29] Charles, I want to call him Swindler, but he was a predatory person who engaged in a Ponzi scheme. [2:50:39] He's the first person who originated this whole concept of a Ponzi scheme, Charles Ponzi. [2:50:44] The president, dear sir, appears to be a person who has somehow legitimized a Ponzi scheme that would be called swindling in a righteous world. [2:51:02] I can but only conclude that the president of the United States, in doing what he's doing to persons by pumping and dumping his Ponzi scheme meme coin, he's engaging in a swindle. [2:51:16] And it does not in any way bring me joy to tell you that we have a swindler as a president. [2:51:25] So now, if you receive these these complaints about the swindler, I assume that you will take appropriate action and that you'll at least send me information concerning the number of complaints. [2:51:39] But more than that, it would seem to me that this would be the kind of thing you would be interested in investigating if the president of the United States is engaged in a Ponzi scheme. [2:51:50] Would you would you come? [2:51:52] That gentleman's time has expired. [2:51:53] Mr. President. [2:51:54] Thank you. [2:51:55] Mr. Mr. Chairman. [2:51:56] Just a moment. [2:51:57] Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition. [2:51:58] I yield back. [2:51:59] Mr. The time belongs to the chairman right this moment. [2:52:02] I haven't recognized anybody. [2:52:04] That gentleman's time has expired. [2:52:06] And as I've done once before today, I want to remind all members of the committee to observe the principles of decorum and courtesy and debate in the House of Representatives and its committees. [2:52:14] And once again, remind members on both sides of the aisle to direct their remarks to the chair and do not speak in what is properly recognized and avoid engaging in personal [2:52:22] personalities or impugning the motives of another member or the president. [2:52:26] With that, I recognize the gentleman from California. [2:52:29] Oh, thank you very much. [2:52:31] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vogt's testimony has been completely inadequate, to say the least. [2:52:37] This is the first and likely only time Mr. Vogt may testify before this committee, this Congress, despite being required by law to do so biannually. [2:52:49] As a result, members of this committee are being deprived of the ability to examine the significant administrative, budgetary, regulatory, and enforcement changes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has implemented under the leadership of acting director vote. [2:53:09] So, pursuant to Clause 2J1 of Rule 11 of the Rules of the House and Clause D5 of Rule 3 of the Rules of the Committee on Financial Services, I and every Democratic member of the committee unanimously request to call additional witnesses selected by committee Democrats to testify in continuation of today's hearing. [2:53:39] Also known as Minority Day hearing, continuing this hearing with the second panel will provide members of the committee and the American public the opportunity to examine the activities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the leadership of acting director vote and their impact on consumer protection in the American financial system. [2:54:03] I also request unanimous consent to enter our Minority Day hearing request letter into the record. [2:54:10] I thank the gentlewoman. [2:54:12] Your letter will be entered in the record by unanimous consent and I appreciate your request on holding a Minority Day hearing. [2:54:20] The committee will review this request pursuant to Clause 2J1 of House Rule 11 and Committee Rule 3D5 and will work with the ranking member to determine a date for that requested hearing. [2:54:32] We will now proceed and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Herodopoulos for three minutes. [2:54:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:54:40] Okay. [2:54:41] All right. [2:54:42] Thank you very much. [2:54:43] First of all, thank you very much for your service. [2:54:45] I know how dedicated you are to looking out for the taxpayer first and it's a welcome change we've seen in the past. [2:54:52] I also want to express my disappointment in some of the unprofessional comments made towards you today. [2:54:57] Every time you come here, you always hand yourself a class and dig in. [2:55:00] I very much appreciate that. [2:55:01] I think we need to elevate the conversation in Congress and you've done that today. [2:55:06] I also want to remind people that the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration, HUD, the Department of Justice, the SEC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and every state attorney general has the ability to look out for the consumer. [2:55:27] It's not just this one agency that you happen to chair at this point. [2:55:31] And I think that should be recognized. [2:55:33] Also, some of the comments made today about fraud. [2:55:36] This is a welcome conversation. [2:55:38] I think that I saw today in the Senate that there is a hearing on fraud and not one member of the other side of the aisle showed up the meeting. [2:55:46] And everyone is seeing these incredible reports about fraud in whether it be Minnesota, in California, where people are clearly just stealing money from the government. [2:55:57] And some people just choose to turn a blind eye. [2:55:59] And it's shocking considering some of the allegations that have been made today. [2:56:03] And so I've heard some of the disappointing comments today. [2:56:07] So I'd like to give you a little bit of time as we conclude today to address some of the things that you still want to address before you conclude your testimony today. [2:56:15] No, thanks for the comment. [2:56:18] It's one of the approaches that we've tried to take with regard to utilizing the tools that the CFPB is to recognize that we're not the only cop on the beat. [2:56:26] And to take our responsibilities seriously, but also to work with our other regulators to figure out who's the best person, who's the best agency with regard to congressional intent. [2:56:36] And that's how we've designed our priorities. [2:56:38] And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would also applaud your efforts today to keep this as even as we can today. [2:56:44] I appreciate that. [2:56:45] And again, I hope we can elevate the conversation because this is what really makes Congress a special place where we all serve and have the honor to serve. [2:56:52] And I hope we can elevate the conversation as we move forward. [2:56:55] And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [2:56:56] I want to thank Acting Director Volk for his testimony today. [2:56:59] You are dismissed, sir. [2:57:00] And thank you for being with us. [2:57:01] I seek recognition. [2:57:02] Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the chair. [2:57:07] The question will be forwarded to the witness for his response. [2:57:09] Acting Director Volk, please respond no later than August 19th, 2026. [2:57:14] Let me recognize the ranking member. [2:57:16] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [2:57:18] That Frank requires that the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau testify semi-annually, meaning this should be at least the third time Mr. Vogt testifies before this committee. [2:57:31] Yet, contrary to the law, Mr. Vogt has successfully avoided accountability despite trying to gut the Bureau's ability to go after bad actors and rolling bad consumer protections like those related to medical debt, student loans, overdraft protections, and veterans. [2:57:52] To make matters worse, Mr. Vogt's testimony today is restricted to just three hours, denying members of both parties and the Americans they represent to hold him and our government accountable. [2:58:06] So, pursuant to Clause 2-M of Rule 1-1 and Clause 2-K-6 of House Rule 1-1, I move that this committee issue a subpoena to compel the appearance of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Acting Director Russell Vogt to ensure that his testimony before this committee, again this Congress, [2:58:36] so that we may do the job the American people sent us to do. [2:58:43] The generalwoman has moved to authorize a subpoena. [2:58:49] For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia seek recognition? [2:58:52] Move to table the motion. [2:58:53] The gentleman has moved to table the motion. [2:58:56] The motion is not debatable and the question now occurs on the motion to the table. [2:59:00] Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. [2:59:02] All those opposed signify by saying nay. [2:59:06] Nay. [2:59:07] Continue to chair, the ayes have it. [2:59:09] I request a recorded vote. [2:59:13] The ranking member requests a recorded vote. [2:59:15] A recorded vote is so requested. [2:59:16] We will now take that vote on the motion to table. [2:59:19] We will suspend until the clerk is in place to call the vote. [2:59:22] So, just pause for a moment. [2:59:25] May I ask if the clerk is prepared to open the vote? [2:59:55] Just a moment. [2:59:57] Very good. [2:59:58] We're waiting for the screen. [2:59:59] A little patience. [3:00:00] Thank you. [3:00:36] Mr. Clerk, are you prepared to open the vote? [3:00:44] The clerk will open the vote. [3:00:46] Members will vote electronically. [3:00:49] This is a motion to table. [3:01:11] Aim down here towards this. [3:01:13] There you go. [3:01:14] You got it recorded. [3:01:20] No vote. [3:01:26] This is a motion to table Mrs. Waters' subpoena resolution. [3:01:52] If all members voted, is there any member that would like to change their vote? [3:02:06] Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. [3:02:10] One more. [3:02:11] Stand by. [3:02:19] Clerk will close the vote and report. [3:02:24] Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 24 and the nays are 13. [3:02:29] The ayes have it. [3:02:30] The motion to table is agreed to. [3:02:32] The hearing is adjourned. [3:02:38] Thank you, ma'am.