Vought testifies on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Senate hearing

[5:46] Good morning. [5:46] We'll call this hearing to order. [5:48] Thank you for being with us to vote. [5:51] Today, the committee welcomes Acting Director Russ Vogt [5:53] to discuss the CFPB semi-annual report to Congress. [5:58] This hearing is an opportunity to discuss what a new day [6:02] at the CFPB looks like, and truly a new day in a very good way. [6:08] Finally, we have a bureau that respects the limits [6:11] of its authority, a bureau that follows its mandate [6:16] instead of pursuing an ideological agenda. [6:19] The decisions that are made at the CFPB [6:22] affect everyday life for Americans and their families. [6:26] They deserve a bureau that recognizes a simple truth. [6:30] Access to affordable financial products [6:32] is a key part of consumer protection. [6:36] Consumers must be treated fairly. [6:40] Bad actors must be held accountable. [6:43] I believe the best way to protect consumers [6:45] is through competition, choice, and clear rules, [6:49] not through heavy-handed Washington control that leaves consumers [6:55] with fewer and fewer options. [7:00] In South Carolina, I hear from constituents who are working hard, [7:05] but still feeling squeezed. [7:07] For them, a financial product is not a political talking point. [7:12] It can be the bridge between getting by and getting ahead. [7:17] That is why affordability starts with access. [7:22] As you know, many consumers choose to use overdraft services to make ends meet, [7:28] but the Biden CFPB attempted to impose price controls that would have largely eliminated access to those services. [7:37] I want to stop there for a second, because it's such an easy thing to run by, [7:41] and then later on it will be attacked and demonized. [7:44] But the truth of the matter is that when price controls are put in place, [7:51] banks and creditors eliminate access. [7:55] Classic point is when we have the 10% cap conversation. [8:00] Director Vogt, you probably remember when we were having, as a nation, [8:04] in this conversation around capping credit cards at 10%. [8:08] The fact of the matter is that when you cap credit cards at 10%, [8:11] what you ultimately do is you eliminate credit opportunities [8:16] for those having less than a 750 credit score. [8:22] The vast majority of Americans have less than a 750 credit score, [8:26] which means that they would ultimately have to go somewhere else [8:30] other than a bank or a regulated entity to find access to credit, [8:34] which means that they would become even in greater jeopardy than before. [8:40] Under, we rejected that harmful rule. [8:44] When Washington writes rules that push responsible products out of the market, [8:48] people do not stop needing those products. [8:51] They are just left with limited choices, higher costs, and worse alternatives. [8:58] Regulatory relief is not just about banks or businesses. [9:01] It's about the impact on the people they serve. [9:04] When unnecessary rules drive up compliance costs, those costs show up as higher fees [9:11] and fewer options for families and small businesses. [9:16] The rules should be clear, lawful, and focused on actual harm. [9:22] A responsible CFPB should provide clear rules of the road so consumers, innovators, [9:27] and community institutions know what is expected of them. [9:32] For too long, too many policies were built on shaky legal ground or the idea that Washington knows best. [9:41] During the Biden administration, the CFPB functioned as an activist organization [9:46] that ignored statutory limits on its authority and effectively became part of the White House's messaging operation. [9:53] That's why virtually all, virtually all of the Biden CFPB policies are now gone. [10:01] Either struck down in court, overturned by Congress, or rescinded because they were so partisan and often illegal. [10:11] In contrast, clear and durable rules help businesses compete, banks lend, and consumers access the products they need [10:19] with confidence that the CFPB's policies have staying power. [10:24] Republicans have also taken action to right-size the bureau itself. [10:29] Congress substantially reduced the CFPB's statutory funding cap, placing meaningful limits on an agency [10:37] that had operated far too long without sufficient budgetary discipline and with bloated staffing. [10:45] Acting Director Vogt, I appreciate the work that you have done to rein in the agency's overreach. [10:50] Rewrite problematic rulemaking, modernize supervision, and operate within a responsible budget. [10:59] Finally, we should have an honest conversation about the structure of the CFPB. [11:06] Democrats created an agency with a single director and extraordinary power. [11:14] If they now believe one person has too much power and control over the bureau, [11:19] they should work with Republicans on structural reforms that would reduce partisanship, increase accountability, [11:26] and bring long-term stability to the CFPB. [11:29] The CFPB should protect consumers and preserve access by promoting competition and choice, [11:36] not by imposing price controls or heavy-handed mandates. [11:41] That is the standard I will use today, and I look forward to your testimony. [11:45] Ranking Member Warren. [11:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [11:50] Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in our nation's history, not by a little bit, but by a wide margin. [11:57] The president and his family are enriching themselves by billions of dollars with shady crypto ventures. [12:05] Pardons are handed out to white-collar criminals like it's Super Sales Day at Macy's, reportedly with a $2 million price tag per pardon. [12:17] Trump allies fork over millions of dollars for the president's gold-encrusted ballroom or one of his other vanity projects. [12:26] And then those allies get a regulatory favor or a big government contract or both. [12:34] Trump and his cronies get rich and hard-working middle-class families pick up the tab. [12:41] One clear example of how families pay for Trump's corruption is over at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. [12:51] For one solid year while he ran for office, Donald Trump promised to bring down prices on day one. [12:59] Those were his words, on day one. [13:02] We are now on day 541 and prices are up, up, up. [13:10] And President Trump claims affordability is a hoax. [13:15] One of the tools available to Trump to keep costs low is the CFPB, to return money to American families when they've been cheated. [13:25] But instead of delivering help for people who have been scammed, Trump's acting director of the CFPB, Mr. Vogt, [13:33] has attacked the agency and, according to a report I am releasing today, where we gathered the data together, [13:40] those attacks on the CFPB have cost American families $26.5 billion so far. [13:51] The CFPB's whole job is to fight for the little guy. [13:55] Since it opened its doors in 2011, it has returned over $21 billion directly to families who have been ripped off by massive corporations, shady lenders, and big banks. [14:09] Now that's great for American consumers, but not so great for the giant banks and big time cheaters who have gotten caught. [14:19] So President Trump took a side between those two. [14:23] Instead of helping families when they are cheated, he put Mr. Vogt in charge to try to shut down the agency. [14:30] On multiple occasions, Mr. Vogt tried to fire nearly all the staff and shut off the agency's funding. [14:38] Mr. Vogt has clearly made it his mission to delete the agency from existence. He has failed. [14:46] So Mr. Vogt and President Trump have moved on to Plan B. [14:51] Instead of shutting the agency down, just use it as another corrupt way for Trump and his buddies to make more money for themselves. [15:01] Now, how do you take a consumer agency and turn it into a cash grab for corporate cheaters? [15:08] Acting Director Vogt has figured out a way. [15:12] Take a look at just some of the examples of what he's done over the past 18 months. [15:18] Because it got caught scamming its customers, Navy Federal Credit Union has been ordered by the CFPB [15:27] to return $80 million to the service members who had been cheated. [15:32] Director Vogt came in and said, oh, that's OK. [15:35] Navy Federal can keep the $80 million. [15:39] And the people who got cheated just don't get any money back. [15:43] JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo are a few of the bank owners of Zelle, [15:49] who got sued by the CFPB for allowing people who use Zelle to get scammed out of $870 million. [15:58] Mr. Vogt dropped the charges and the people who got cheated, they get nothing. [16:05] Regions Bank had settled a case with the CFPB and the bank had agreed to refund consumers $141 million. [16:15] Vote dropped the settlement and the customers got nothing. [16:21] Capital One was sued by CFPB for cheating its customers at a $2 billion. [16:28] And once again, Trump and Vote said, keep the money. [16:33] And the people who got cheated got nothing. [16:36] Look, it's a long list. [16:38] But the important thing to remember here is the people who got cheated [16:42] are millions of Americans who are just trying to get by. [16:46] And the people who got away with cheating them were giant companies that, in many cases, [16:52] had already agreed to make refunds to the people they cheated. [16:58] I'd like to enter into the record letters from organizations across the country [17:04] representing the people who have been hurt by the Trump vote CFPB shutdown, Mr. Chairman. [17:11] Mr. Chairman. [17:12] So, I have to ask, why would Trump and Vote do this? [17:17] Just follow the money. [17:18] The same group of billionaires that poured millions into Trump's political campaigns, [17:24] into his ballroom, into his crypto projects, are the very same people who cheated hardworking Americans [17:32] and then got a free pass from Donald Trump and Russ's vote. [17:38] This is corruption, and acting director vote is right at the center of it. [17:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [17:45] Today, we will hear from the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, [17:50] Russ's vote on the CFPB semi-annual report to the Congress. [17:54] Acting director, Vote, thank you for your testimony. [17:56] Thank you for being here. [17:57] You are now recognized. [17:58] Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and members of the committee, [18:03] for the invitation to appear before you today as I reach the end of my tenure at the CFPB. [18:09] I am pleased to present the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's semi-annual report to Congress, [18:14] as well as to provide you an update on our activities. [18:17] After being appointed acting director, our team took a look under the hood and found an agency that [18:22] was weaponized, out of control, and had gone far beyond its statutory mandate. [18:27] Under previous administrations, this agency actually imposed huge costs on the American people [18:33] and stifled the innovation and resourcefulness that is necessary for a strong economy. [18:38] Consumers paid the price literally in the form of higher prices, reduced product offerings, [18:43] increased borrowing expenses, and misuse of their taxpayer dollars. [18:47] The Council of Economic Advisors found that consumers cost them $237 to $370 billion since 2011. [18:57] Instead of going down this destructive path, we have steered the Bureau towards operating with humility, [19:02] accountability, and fiscal responsibility. [19:05] Regulations should be justified by statute, not the whims of ideologues at the Bureau. [19:11] Supervision should be precisely targeted to avoid stifling, economic growth and innovation, [19:16] and disproportionately increasing compliance costs. [19:20] And enforcement should be based on clear violations of the law, [19:23] not on advancing political agenda outside of accountability and oversight from elected [19:28] officials and the American people. The Bureau's express purpose is to implement and enforce [19:34] federal consumer financial law consistently so that all consumers have access to markets [19:39] that are fair, transparent, and competitive. While we have sought to downscale this agency to the [19:45] maximum extent possible and rein in its abuses, we have continued to operate in accordance with that purpose. [19:50] The Bureau's enforcement actions are now focused on addressing actual harm to consumers and ensuring due process. [19:58] President Trump ensured that the Bureau, along with other so-called independent agencies, [20:03] are accountable to leaders elected by the American people and no longer operate with impunity. [20:09] Recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that no such independent agencies exist in slaughter. [20:14] The Bureau's regulatory actions are no longer developed in isolation, and the rest of government works to improve its proposals through OIRA. [20:23] I have also reoriented our internal processes. In supervision, the Bureau focuses its resources on pressing threats to consumers [20:30] and in the areas that are clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. [20:35] In the past, the supervision program pushed well past the limits of its authority under the guise of consumer protection. [20:41] The Bureau also now avoids duplication of supervision by other regulators. [20:47] Supervision is conducted with transparency and respect as examiners announce through the humility pledge. [20:53] They must read at the beginning of all examinations. [20:55] Enforcement also is being guided by a new set of principles so that the CFPB focuses on addressing actual harm to consumers, [21:04] ensuring due process, seeking collaboration, and promoting efficiency. [21:09] When President Trump, under President Trump, there has been a paradigm shift in the way that the CFPB regulates, [21:15] supervises, and enforces the laws as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. [21:19] Though we have improved a great deal about how it operates, the Bureau remains structurally defective, [21:25] and I do not believe that it should exist in its current form. [21:28] I have been committed to running it in a responsible manner and addressing real harms [21:32] instead of remaking financial markets in service of a radical political agenda. [21:38] If confirmed, I know that President Trump's nominee, Brian Johnson, will do a great job [21:43] in continuing to steer the CFPB in an appropriate manner. [21:47] Ultimately, however, CFPB must be subject to Congress's most basic function, [21:52] the appropriations process, to ensure accountability and legitimize an otherwise unserious agency. [21:58] Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [22:01] Thank you, Mr. Vogt. [22:03] The best way, we each get five minutes, by the way, and I'm pretty consistent with asking for us [22:10] to just take five minutes, and so that includes questions and answers. [22:16] I'll start. [22:17] The best way to protect consumers and increase affordability is not through heavy-handed regulation, [22:22] but through competition and choice. [22:24] When over-regulation pushes responsible products out of the market, [22:28] consumers are left with fewer choices and higher costs. [22:32] Virtually all of the Biden Administration's CFPB policies have been struck down in court, [22:36] eliminated by Congress, rescinded, or rewritten. [22:39] Many of those policies would have eliminated consumers' access to important services, [22:45] and I am grateful that this Administration is correcting that overreach. [22:50] We know over-regulation has a cost. [22:53] How is the CFPB's return to clear, lawful, and appropriately tailored regulation, [23:00] strengthening competition, and reducing unnecessary costs across the financial marketplace [23:06] to promote affordable financial products? [23:09] Thank you, Senator. [23:10] I think the biggest way that we're doing that right now is that we've ended regulation by enforcement. [23:17] We're giving the American people clear understanding of where we will supervise and enforce, [23:24] and it is not going to be in areas that you all have not given a statutory authority. [23:29] In addition, we are interpreting our rules as the statutes have articulated and being very, [23:36] very careful not to go beyond those statutes, particularly with regard in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court decisions. [23:44] So our view is that Congress makes these laws. [23:49] CFPB has been given enormous tools, and we want to be very, very cautious in using those tools. [23:55] Excellent. [23:57] Leads right into my next question. [23:59] Under former Director Chopra, CFPB frequently ignored regular required rulemaking procedures [24:06] and sought to make new policies through guidance, press releases, blog posts, or threats of enforcement. [24:14] You've reversed that trend by adhering to proper rulemaking procedures and rescinding [24:18] guidance that was legally dubious or overly burdensome. [24:23] Can you discuss why an activist CFPB that regulates through enforcement or post or press releases [24:31] or threats is harmful to consumers? [24:36] Well, it raises the costs on them, and when you have a supervision approach and enforcement posture [24:44] that honestly resembles a sue and settle approach. [24:47] You don't have clear guidance to the financial markets, to the regulated entities in any way [24:55] that allows people to take risks to innovate when they feel that their innovation is going to have [25:02] the hard edge of a regulator come behind them. [25:04] And that doesn't mean that people don't make sense. [25:07] But when we see something that we're concerned about, our first step now is to figure out what's going on [25:12] and to get it fixed, remediation, we want to encourage self-reporting, we want reconciliation. [25:19] If we can't do it at that level, then we will take adversarial action. [25:23] And we are underway in a number of those instances. [25:26] So our belief is that we want to encourage innovation in financial products because people will benefit from that. [25:34] And, you know, I'll probably get asked about Navy Federal Credit Union. [25:38] We want people to have overdraft protection. [25:41] If you've ever lived paycheck to paycheck, overdraft protection ensures that your check doesn't bounce [25:47] and you pay a worse fee because of it. [25:49] And it's often very embarrassing. [25:51] Overdraft fee is designed to protect that gap. [25:57] And the previous director came in without a rule, without a statute, and put out guidance, [26:03] guidance that was different than the previous set of policies, [26:07] and came in, and Navy Federal Credit Union, as a result, was out of compliance with that new guidance [26:13] that had never gone through notice and comment. [26:16] We put an end to that. [26:17] That's the type of thing that we're doing, Senator. [26:18] Well, I have a couple other questions for you, but I'm going to skip my questions. [26:22] So I think you made a really important point that I want to highlight, and then you can have time to [26:25] comment if there's time left. [26:26] But I will say without any question, as a kid that grew up in poverty in a single-parent household, [26:31] the one thing I understand is that when people with good intentions try to limit access, [26:37] the unintended consequence is higher prices for people living in poverty. [26:41] That classic example is that every single time you limit some fee that you think is bad, [26:46] you actually increase the cost on the consumer. [26:49] As an example, you limit the overdraft fee, but what you're actually doing is you're sending [26:54] sometimes consumers to other alternatives that are painful, onerous, and expensive. [27:00] I remember having to go to a rent-to-own place to get the first microwave we had in the house. [27:05] Why do we do that? [27:06] Because we couldn't afford any other options, because credit was not available. [27:10] And what we do not need to see is a return. [27:14] Congress and the Senate trying to make good things better, actually making it worse. [27:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [27:24] So, Acting Director, since you took over the CFPB, [27:27] the Bureau has dropped more than 40 enforcement actions [27:32] against giant corporations that have cheated American families. [27:35] That's 40. [27:37] And instead of having to pay back the consumers they cheated, [27:41] you've told these corporations, keep the money for yourself, consumers get nothing. [27:45] Let's look at one example. [27:47] In 2023, Toyota agreed to pay $50 million to settle a claim [27:53] that thousands of consumers were tricked into buying add-on insurance and warranties [27:59] that they didn't need and they didn't want. [28:02] Secret emails show that a Toyota lobbyist reached out to you, [28:09] quote, [28:10] to see if there's a positive path forward on their already agreed-on settlement, [28:17] to ask you for help after they had already agreed to repay the consumers they had cheated. [28:24] Now, two weeks after Toyota's lobbyist reached out to you, [28:28] he followed up with your second-in-command and said he had also flagged the issue for the White House. [28:35] Oh, and Toyota did one other thing before they reached out to you. [28:39] They donated a million dollars to the president's inauguration. [28:43] And just like that, you, you, reversed their already agreed-upon settlement. [28:50] So acting director Vogt, that affected thousands of people. [28:54] How much on average did Toyota's customers get scammed out of? [29:00] Well, I think the way you've just characterized that is inaccurate. [29:04] And I never talked about that obvious. [29:06] The facts are all documented, Mr. Vogt. [29:07] And let me just explain that you specifically, when you wrote the law, [29:10] did not give the CFPB authority over car dealerships. [29:14] This was a novel theory that did not have a basis in statute, and we just- [29:18] So, Mr. Vogt, Mr. Vogt, Toyota had already agreed [29:21] that they had cheated people out of money and agreed to pay the money back. [29:26] And I'm asking you, when you took the action to say to Toyota, [29:30] you keep the money and let all those people who got cheated just go suck air, [29:35] when that happened, how much was each of those people, how much had they been cheated out of? [29:42] I assume you had looked at the file and knew what it was that you were letting Toyota keep the money for. [29:47] Senator, one of the hallmarks of our stewardship of the agency is we're not going to use [29:53] the sue and settle consent order to go after companies when we don't have the statutory authority. [30:01] Each of those people had been cheated out of. I'm kind of thinking maybe you don't. [30:05] It ranged from $700 to $2,500 each. [30:13] So if you are a Toyota customer who got scammed out of hundreds of dollars, [30:17] and you were in line to get a refund, and you found out that Toyota sent a million bucks to the president, [30:25] and now Toyota doesn't have to pay you back, you might look at that and think it sounds like corruption. [30:33] Acting Director Vogt, how many of the enforcement actions and investigations that you dropped [30:39] were against companies that have donated to President Trump? [30:44] We've made every determination with regard to supervision and enforcement without regard to anything [30:51] other than the statute and the charge that we've been given at the agency. [30:55] How many have donated to President Trump? You've dropped 40 plus actions for companies. [31:03] How many of those companies have donated to President Trump? [31:07] I have no idea because you have no idea. Actually, some of them were telling you. [31:11] Toyota, for example, said, Oh, we've reached out to the White House. [31:15] And it's a matter of public record where they donated a million dollars. [31:19] You know, so I've got a list here of companies that cut checks to President Trump that we know of. [31:29] Apple, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan. You want me to keep going on this? [31:35] Toyota, Walmart, Meta, and that's just at the CFPB. In 2025, across federal agencies, [31:46] the Trump administration dropped cases against more than 50 companies that we can document have [31:53] financial ties to the President or to his inner circle. So let's take a look at one more case, [32:00] one you have mentioned. Navy Federal Credit Union got caught by the CFPB charging illegal overdraft [32:07] fees. If you hadn't dropped in and called off the settlement, they had agreed to a settlement. [32:14] How much would our service members have been reimbursed for getting cheated? How much? [32:19] Those fees were not illegal. And remember that this was a credit union made up of service members who [32:24] would have had to pay for that cost. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. [32:31] They were illegal. They agreed to pay. Senator Realms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [32:37] I've got a couple of different questions I want to do, but I let me provide you with a few minutes [32:43] here to just clarify and finish answering the questions that I think are good questions from [32:47] the ranking member. But I think your answers might help to clear that up. I don't think you were given [32:52] the opportunity to answer them. When we write a statute and we give authority to an executive [33:01] branch office to execute a law, we lay out very clearly within the statute what those authorities [33:09] are. And if you go beyond those authorities, you're violating a law, in my opinion. Could you clarify a [33:16] little bit? Is there a statute that would have provided the CFPB with the authority to go after [33:23] auto manufacturers? No, Senator. And I agree with you. Explain that a little bit, please. No, I mean, [33:29] when you all pass statutes and give us authority to rule make, you're giving a delegated authority to us [33:37] that is something we have to be very, very good stewards of. And the last thing we want to do is go [33:42] beyond how you've articulated or if there is discretion in a law to do it outside of how you've [33:50] intended us to use that law. And so we have been very cautious at CFPB in rolling back guidance that [33:56] was in conflict with the statute or certainly never entertained by the statute. And that's really what [34:01] we've done since I've been there at the CFPB. So with regard to the issues that have been brought up [34:10] here so far in this meeting, it was a determination that the CFPB prior to or in the previous administration [34:19] had decided outside of what would have been a statutorily directed order that they were simply [34:28] going to go after a particular company because they thought they could exceed what the authority [34:36] was that was granted by Congress. We talked a little bit about sue and settle. Talk about what [34:42] that means with regard to what the CFPB was doing in terms of being coercive to businesses and what the [34:49] cost could be for those businesses if this hadn't been corrected by the Trump administration and the [34:57] corrections to the CFPB. CFPB has the authority to do administrative consent orders in conjunction with [35:04] their supervision and enforcement authorities. And so they have the ability to really put the onus [35:13] on a particular company and make a finding and have penalties that accrue as a result of that, some of [35:22] them tolling at a very high level. And so if you're one of those companies, what are you going to do? [35:29] You're going to settle to make the pain stop regardless. Any limit on how large those costs [35:35] could be if they don't settle? They can get up to very, very large amounts. And that's one of the [35:39] reasons why you see companies settling even when they know that they have done nothing wrong and not [35:44] contesting. In other words, they're making a business decision saying, I got to deal with a bureaucrat [35:49] and the bureaucrat can make life real miserable for my entire entity. Precisely. Kind of like if [35:57] a prosecutor walks in and says, I'm going to charge you with a felony, but if you make a deal with me [36:03] to take a misdemeanor, I'll let you off easy. And the guy looks at and says, I'm innocent, but I can't [36:10] afford to pay the damn bill for a felony. So maybe it's easier for me to just take the misdemeanor. Is [36:15] that what this was amounting to? That's exactly what we have found. But in this particular case, [36:19] we're talking millions of dollars that somebody has to pay. Correct. What about the credit unions? In this [36:26] particular case, who owns the credit unions? The members of the credit union themselves, [36:30] in this case, are service members. And so they really understand that, don't they? [36:34] So when the CFPP walks into Navy or Naval Credit Naval Standard Credit Union and says, [36:41] we're going to charge you money for the way that you've treated your people, who ends up paying the [36:47] bill? I don't think we've made that very clear. Service members and their families. Service members and [36:52] their families pay the fee and the penalty. Was there more than just a payback? Was there going [36:57] to be any kind of penalties or any costs involved in doing this in terms of responding to the CFPP [37:02] demand? They actually paid their penalty. We did not cancel that. It was the redress is what we [37:07] canceled it. So we basically froze it in time when we came in. And so along with demanding that they [37:13] redistribute some of the funds, they also, there was a cost to the owners of the credit union for paying [37:21] a penalty to the CFPB. What does the CFPB do with that money? We put it in the civil penalty fund, [37:29] civil monetary penalty fund for redress, where sometimes a company that's bankrupt can't, [37:35] and has been a fraudulent actor, can't pay their redress. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [37:40] Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This spoke. We have a housing supply [37:46] crisis in the United States, which is obvious to everyone. Yet the Trump administration is sitting on [37:52] $750 million in home building funds, mostly from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital [38:00] Magnet Fund that could build or rehabilitate about 63,000 homes across the country. And these programs [38:08] are not funded by the taxpayer. They're funded from a portion of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [38:15] And 22 of my colleagues joined me in writing on June 30th to urge you to release these funds, [38:21] which you're holding. Will you commit to release these funds? And when will you do it? [38:27] Happy to look at that. Did see your letter. And we will happy to follow up. And we're looking to [38:33] expeditiously move on all of those apportionments as quickly as we can. [38:37] How quickly is quickly? [38:39] Well, it's halfway through the fiscal year. We obviously want to make sure that [38:44] the funds get to the agency, that they can be spent. [38:47] You've been sitting on those funds now for more than a year. And I doubt that you need much more time. [38:56] And I would urge you to respond quickly, you know, actually immediately. [39:04] You've also proposed a regulation to overhaul the federal grant making process that would effectively end [39:11] merit-based decisions and give political appointees unprecedented control of a billion dollars in federal grants. [39:20] And there have been 350,000 comments already about your proposal. Most of them, I suspect, are in opposition. [39:28] In fact, we've already seen the effects of this kind of approach to decision making. Last month, [39:37] the Trump administration began dismantling the NSF Ocean Observation Initiative and critical real-time [39:45] monitoring of the oceans. And the political appointees who made the decision clearly didn't know what they were [39:51] doing, not understanding the science, and were forced to quickly reverse their decision. So how will this [40:00] rule ensure that political litmus test won't be used to make grants? [40:04] Senator, I think that this rule is about ensuring that we have democratic control of the spending that [40:11] is going out at executive branch agencies. And so that when you have a policy official in charge of an [40:18] agency based on themselves being in the cabinet, that those are the ones that are making the final call [40:25] on how and what we're spending money on through the grant program. And I was up here last year, [40:30] I think, I think you were there, talking about the rescissions process. And one of the biggest [40:35] questions I got was, well, you know, Mr. Director, why don't you just not spend it on this or that? You [40:41] have an opportunity to impose your own policy objectives. And to the extent that that's a valid [40:47] argument, this 2 CFR is part of that process. We want to make sure that NIH is not spending money [40:55] on gain-of-function research that contributed to the last pandemic, just because Tony Fauci, [41:00] who was not a policy official of a political nature, decides that it's a wise thing to do. [41:05] Excuse me, so you have a non-doctor, non-scientist making decisions about scientific research, [41:12] which seems to me to be a fairly bad approach. Let me move on. [41:18] In that case, Senator Jay Matajiari would be a scientist. [41:21] Let me move on. I was the lead sponsor of the Military Lending Act based on my experience [41:28] as a soldier. And in February 2025, I sent you a very simple letter asking for an explanation, [41:36] and I still have not had a response. In fact, you're not at all very responsive. [41:42] In June 2025, you testified to me at the Appropriations Committee that you specifically [41:47] made military lending an enforcement priority. Well, let's look at the record. Before your tender, [41:54] the CFPB took 40 enforcement actions that yielded $363 million in relief for service members. You have [42:02] taken only two enforcement actions, securing only $6.75 million. And again, as Senator Warren has [42:12] pointed out, you released the Navy Federal Credit Union from an obligation to refund $80 million in [42:18] illegally charged fees to U.S. service members. And this argument that, oh, they'll all pay because [42:26] it's a cooperative. These people were denied funds, and you said, stop. We're not going to pay them back. [42:37] You've reduced the Office of Service Members Affairs from 47 employees to nine. You've reduced the CFPB [42:43] supervision staff by 85 percent, and you've cut the number of annual exams from hundreds to only 70. [42:51] You are basically abandoning the troops and the soldiers, sailors, and airmen that are being [43:00] exploited by payday lenders, by all sorts of used car dealers and everything else. And to me, [43:09] that's a shame because you'll probably be the first one to stand up and say how what you do for [43:14] service members. You're not doing anything for service members. My time's expired. Senator Kennedy. [43:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Director. I appreciate all your work on reducing the number of [43:37] rules and regulations. For an agency to get rid of a rule of regulation under normal procedure of the [43:48] APA, how long does it take? It takes most of the time over a year, quite some time. Yes. Do we have [44:00] rules and regulations that exist that are in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in [44:09] the West Virginia versus EPA case and Loper Bright? Possibly, Senator. One doesn't immediately come to [44:17] mind, but the way that we have interpreted those two decisions would be extremely cautious with the [44:24] discretion that exists in the law. For instance, expanding to a larger participant in a market [44:30] that the last director did and got CRA. That's the kind of thing where we've used our caution greatly. [44:35] Well, here's my suggestion. As you, I'm sure, know, Mr. Director, there is a good cause exception [44:45] to the notice and comment requirements of the APA. And basically, the APA says, I think the words [44:55] it uses, if there's an existing rule and regulation that is contrary to the public interest, [45:05] an agency doesn't have to go through the one year process. The agency can just unilaterally say, [45:14] this is not in the public interest. Now, if an existing rule and regulation is in violation [45:23] of Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA, why couldn't our agencies take an aggressive posture [45:33] and just say it violates the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court? [45:40] And it is no more. We can. And in my OIRA hat, we have put out guidance to that effect to make [45:49] sure the agencies know that. Here's the tension, just so we're all clear. The courts haven't necessarily [45:54] caught up with that understanding of the statute. And so for those big rules that we are concerned [46:01] about that we want the opportunities to defend during our time in office, the tension is a strategic [46:07] one about which ones we use and why as a tool. Well, they're going to sue you anyway, [46:11] no matter what you do, because every one of these rules or regulations is making somebody money. [46:20] Now, it's costing our business community a lot of money, which I think, which I know in part leads [46:26] to higher prices because those costs are passed on. But I would strongly encourage you, since you're going [46:33] to be sued anyway to make use of the good cause exception to the EPA. Clearly, if you look at a [46:42] statute or a rule and it violates West Virginia v. EPA or Oprah Bright, that's contrary to the public [46:52] interest. And there's your standard. And I would strongly encourage you all to do that. Just give me [47:00] a ballpark number. How many rules and regulations have you gotten rid of or are trying to get rid of? [47:07] Well, right now, the president gave us a goal of 10 to one, deregulatory to one. We achieved six in [47:16] the first term, 10 I thought might be a harder challenge. We did 129 to one in the first term, [47:23] and we think we're going to have similar levels. Is that in the thousands? Yes. [47:27] Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. My second point is it doesn't require a response, [47:34] but I want you to think about something. Inflation is back now. We all have our opinion about the cause. [47:45] I think it's more than just the conflict in Iran. But that's a debate for another day. We have to give [47:55] people relief in the cost of living. I really would ask you to consider through through the agency, [48:02] you're now director of or otherwise, giving people some relief on their medical debt being reported [48:12] to the rating agencies. I'm not saying wipe out their debt. I'm not saying that. If it's, [48:18] I don't know whether it's legitimate or not, but nobody understands when you go to the hospital, [48:25] you get a bill and nobody can ever explain. But the collectors report that debt to the rating agencies, [48:34] which runs people's credit, which makes it harder for the pay to pay the money back. [48:39] Now, my friends and I'm coming to Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. [48:44] But I saw how I've got 10 seconds under under the read rule. You just use six of them though. [48:50] I know. I really think you ought to give some people people some relief from medical debt, [48:55] if not permanently, temporarily. Just don't report it to the rating agencies. Give them a break. Thank you, [49:01] Mr. Chairman. You've been very indulgent. Senator Warner. I get the Kennedy 36 second add on. [49:06] Absolutely not. Dr. Boat, it's good to see you again. I know you're here and your role is acting at [49:15] CFPB. Let me state for the record, I totally disagree with your comments about this agency was [49:23] weaponized, your treatment of the workforce. You have gone through some dramatic reductions there. [49:29] What's the current level of workforce at CFPB? 1071. Do you expect that and everybody is now in back [49:37] in full time five days a week, I hope? They are on their way back into five days a week. [49:44] Everyone's been working five days a week. We have temporarily put on pause for confirmation of our [49:52] nominee to on the decision of pulling people back from the regions to D.C. [49:56] Okay. Well, I'm extraordinarily concerned that you've cut the enforcement from 487 to just 127. [50:05] This agency not always agreed with it, but it put billions back into Americans' pockets, Senator [50:11] Kennedy, and when there have been abuses, and to walk away from that is really concerning to me. [50:17] I'm not going to get you, unless I can also raise, what is your obsessive concern about CDFIs? I mean, [50:25] CDFIs provide a source of funding for underserved communities. Secretary Besant assured me, [50:34] when I and 19 Democrats voted for its confirmation, he was a supporter. This Congress continues to fund [50:40] them. We have 34 senators in CDFI caucus, including the Senate Finance Chair and the Senate Banking Committee [50:49] Chair. Why won't you release their money? We have released the money for fiscal year 25 and 26. [50:57] The money that has not been apportioned is for 26 and 27. You're saying to me, and please stay on [51:03] the record, that all the money in 25 has been released back to the actual CDFI? 25 and 26? And 26? From OMB's [51:11] perspective, has it been apportioned to the Treasury Department? If I can answer your question, my concern, [51:16] and we have had a dim view of this program as an administration, but there's tons of examples, [51:21] and I can go through them, of where in the last administration they were incredibly woke, [51:25] and we have concerns with that. But also, as it pertains to this committee and the CFPB in general, [51:30] CDFIs are exempt from ability to repay. Well, excuse me, sir. So all the 14 Republicans, [51:36] including Chairman Scott, including my co-chair, Mike Crapo, including your Treasury Secretary, Scott [51:45] Besant, have been supportive of helping underserved communities, and they have been supportive of [51:51] all these woke institutions all over America? I think that there are certainly bipartisan views [51:56] on this program, but let me just give you an example. When you have 500,000 to inclusive action, [52:01] which is suing the federal government to prevent ICE from investigating the fraudulent use of funds [52:06] to illegals, that is a major concern that we have. Now, we have released the funds- [52:08] I'd love to see your documentation. I've got two minutes left here, because this is the one I really [52:13] want to come to. I respect your career in government. You've done a lot of things in think tanks, [52:20] and you're serving the government a lot of ways. But your own comments, and this is very important to [52:25] me. I'm sure Senator Van Hollen will raise it as well. We've got a heck of a lot of federal workers, [52:30] and the cuts from ill-informed doge, and a smart doge, I would have been supportive of, but this ill-informed [52:40] doge has had enormous effects. I think facts will show, and history will show, it actually costs the taxpayer [52:47] money, and I'd love to work on a full audit of doge. But here's the real question I want to get to. You said in [52:53] your writings that you wanted to traumatize federal workforce. So, Director Vogt, as a former CEO myself- [53:02] That's not what I said, Senator, but I'm happy to clarify previous statements. Listen, your writings were [53:08] very clear. You wanted to make sure federal workers felt like they shouldn't go to work. You felt like you [53:12] wanted to add trauma. So, I'm asking you, as business guy to government employee, give yourself a [53:19] grade on how much trauma you've brought to federal workforce. We've done aggressive actions to live [53:25] and have fiscally responsible government. Give me a- and please don't- I don't accept the premise of the [53:30] question, Senator. I don't think that we have done that. You know, the thing is, you want to ask the [53:34] questions, get elected and sit up here. You've got a United States Senator asking a question. Give yourself a [53:40] grade, A, B, C, D, F, on how well you've done at traumatizing our workforce. I think we've done an [53:47] incredible job in running the CFPB, and I'm excited to be here to answer questions about that. I was a [53:53] business guy. So, don't, you know, use bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Did you get an A, a B, a C, or did you [53:59] fail? I actually think you did a pretty- you did, with your goal of traumatizing and undermining the federal [54:04] workforce, I think you did a pretty damn good job. What would give yourself- what grade would you give them? We've done an [54:09] excellent job running the CFPB. Sir, I would say, excellent job running- excellent job on terrorizing [54:17] our- and traumatizing our federal workforce. And again, I go back and thank the chairman and so [54:20] many of us who've been supporters of CDFIs. His unwillingness to continue to release on a regular [54:27] basis, congressionally appropriated bipartisan funds is outrageous. Senator Ricketts. Thank you, [54:34] Mr. Chairman. I want to address something that I've heard in this room from my colleagues on the other [54:39] side of the aisle with regard to the CFPB being the only cop on the beat. I can tell you that from my [54:47] personal experience, that is absolutely not the case. That as Governor of Nebraska, I had a Department [54:53] of Banking. And if anybody, any of our consumers in Nebraska came and approached us with a problem, [54:59] no matter how big the bank was, we would investigate to make sure that that consumer got the resolve that [55:06] they needed from whatever problem they had. If they were- had some sort of problem with the banking [55:10] department, we got involved. But it wasn't just the Department of Banking in the state of Nebraska [55:14] to do that, right? The OCC could do it, FDIC, FTC, the Fed, CFTC, the NCUA. All these organizations [55:27] could protect the consumer and take up consumer complaints. And they have. We don't need one big, [55:37] giant organization that is trying to oversee all of this. We need the organizations that are [55:42] responsible for this to do their jobs. The CFPB is just another added layer of bureaucracy on top [55:48] of regulatory organizations who are responsible for doing this. I want to take the example of crypto [55:55] kiosk ATM scams. The state of Nebraska and 28 other states have passed laws to protect consumers on [56:02] this and combat those. In Nebraska, from September of 2025 until June of 2026, the banking department [56:08] of banking- the Nebraska Department of Banking returned $325,000 back to consumers in our state, [56:15] stemming from these crypto ATMs fraud and scams. It wasn't the CFPB that did that. That was the state [56:21] of Nebraska Department of Banking. In the Clarity Act, I worked to ensure that that bill, the Clarity Act, [56:27] preserves the authority of states to enforce laws such as these crypto ATM laws that have helped [56:34] protect consumers. And to say that nobody else is out there looking out for consumers is just [56:39] simply not true. It's wrong. We ought not to try to scare consumers by saying if the CFPB is not [56:45] doing its job, somehow there's not a cop on the beat. It's just factually false. And we shouldn't try [56:50] and scare consumers that way. Protecting consumers, again, doesn't require the CFPB. It requires [56:56] agencies like the state of Nebraska to do their jobs. Anyway, so now let's talk about the CFPB and [57:03] the impact on affordability. While the Biden era CFPB was protecting consumers, what it actually was [57:10] trying to protect consumers, what it was actually doing was making it more expensive to serve. We've [57:13] kind of covered that a little bit. Here's the problem. Compliance costs are expensive for small [57:18] businesses. Big companies can hire lots of compliance people. A small rural business in [57:24] rural Nebraska doesn't have the ability to hire the same number of compliance people that a Fortune 500 [57:29] company does. Take the Biden era 1071 small business lending rule through Dodd-Frank. Congress told the [57:37] bureau to collect 13 points of data. The Biden era CFPB expanded that to 81 points of data and reached [57:42] down to a lender making as few as a hundred loans a year. My colleague Senator Kennedy led the CRA [57:48] against that one. And I appreciate the fact that you've revised that rule. So thank you very much. [57:53] There was another 11th hour rule the Biden administration rushed through and implemented [57:57] very poorly. The digital payments rule stretched the CFPB's authority to supervise and examine [58:01] non-bank digital consumer payment applications. Again, completely out of the CFPB's purview. [58:07] And many of these payment companies were, of course, already regulated at the federal and state level. [58:13] This expanded authority without properly identifying the specific market it sought to supervise [58:18] or the risk within the market that existing regulation already doesn't mitigate. And by the [58:23] way, these payment apps account for just one percent of CFPB's complaints in 2023. The cost benefit [58:29] analysis of this rule is insufficient and unrealistic. It estimated that the cost of a single CFP exam was [58:34] just $25,000. I'm sure, Mr. Vought, you would agree with me. No bank would agree that a CFPB [58:40] investigation or audit is only going to cost $25,000. I led the CRA on this one to overturn this one. [58:46] I was pleased to see it overturned. So, Director Vought, when the CFPB writes a rule like these, [58:51] who ends up paying the cost? Consumers pay the cost with higher amounts of spending, [58:57] and sometimes the product doesn't get put on the market. Under your leadership, does the bureau run [59:02] real cost benefit analysis on what potential actions or rules might cost people that they're meant to help? [59:07] We do now. It goes through the OIRA process, which is a fundamental hallmark of that process. [59:12] It's not required by statute, but we would suggest that would be a good reform from Congress to add to [59:19] the CFPB. Well, great. Thank you very much. I just want to emphasize what the chairman said earlier, [59:24] that while some of these measures may have been well-intentioned to begin with, [59:28] when you start doing some of these rules and you make more expensive consumers, you actually are [59:34] harming the people that you think that you're trying to help. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would notice [59:39] I'm only three seconds over. Thank you, sir. Well done. Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, [59:44] Mr. Chairman. I just want to start by seconding the comments made by my colleague from Virginia [59:50] regarding the treatment of federal employees. But Mr. Vought, I want to talk about CFPB. [59:58] You're aware of the fact that since 2011, the CFPB has returned $21 billion to consumers who were [1:00:08] cheated in some way. Are you aware of that fact? I'm also aware that it has raised costs on the [1:00:13] same consumers. But are you aware of that fact, Mr. Are you aware of the fact that it returned $21 [1:00:19] billion? I was listening to one of my colleagues here about the costs imposed. And I will say to [1:00:26] Maryland consumers who were cheated out of their money, they were glad that there was an agency there [1:00:32] to help them out. But you're in favor of getting rid of the CFPB, right? You'd like to get rid of it [1:00:38] entirely. Yes. And so as the person in charge of it right now, you're doing that because you [1:00:49] understand there's a statutory requirement. Is that correct? We have statutes that we are executing [1:00:54] and enforcing in line with those responsibilities. Right. So your ultimate goal is to eliminate [1:01:03] the agency. And so I interpret your actions to mean you're taking the bare minimum necessary to [1:01:12] comply with the statute. Is that is that fair? We are taking a approach to do as little damage as [1:01:22] possible. That doesn't mean that we're taking an approach to do our supervision or enforcement as [1:01:27] little as possible. We're sticking to the law. We're interested in reforms to the agency that would [1:01:32] take it away from it being, in our minds, structurally defective. And we are complying with all court orders [1:01:39] to do so. But you're also taking court orders that required payments to consumers and essentially [1:01:53] allowing the entities that were found liable for returning money to consumers. You're letting them off [1:02:00] the hook in many cases, aren't you? If there were not grounds for the original enforcement action [1:02:05] that was that took place. So because there wasn't a statute. It was a novel legal theory. [1:02:11] We have a whole set of guidance on why we are taking the actions that we are taking. So even if a court [1:02:16] found that there was a statute that made an action allowable, you still in many cases or some cases. We've [1:02:26] complied with all court orders. I'm not sure. Well, let's look at some of these particular [1:02:33] cases. I do want to ask you about the case of Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency [1:02:39] and the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust. The companies have been ordered to pay $5 million [1:02:46] over student loan servicing failures. Despite that order, when you took over, you essentially negotiated a [1:02:55] settlement that helped the companies rather than the plaintiffs in this case, right? [1:03:00] CFPB does not have authority over bankruptcy law. That was a bankruptcy case. [1:03:06] Well, my understanding is that the courts found differently. Let me ask you about another [1:03:13] case or set of cases or non cases. Is it true that just a single enforcement action has been open since [1:03:20] February 2025? We have taken action with regard to companies that we have had concerns with. We are [1:03:27] continuing about five enforcement cases from the previous director. I got asked this question. I'm [1:03:33] not quite sure which one it refers to, whether it refers to built or another action that we're taking, [1:03:39] but I'm happy to respond to the instance of the one. Well, my question is, is it the case that you've [1:03:45] only opened one new case since you've been in charge? I don't I want to further understand what it means [1:03:52] to open this case and that if you have a company name, I'd be better able to respond to it. I think [1:03:58] the general point, Senator, is that we have spent our time aligning the enforcement docket with our [1:04:04] priorities. And we've had a number of cases that we've had to drop. That does not mean that we are not [1:04:10] using our enforcement tools. We are, in fact, continuing five cases that we think are important. [1:04:16] But we also have a different approach to the enforcement. We want reconciliation, remediation. [1:04:21] And so a company like two two examples built. We saw something in news that was concerning. We [1:04:27] reached out to the company. And before it got to the adversarial part of the process, [1:04:32] they were able to fix their issues. Similarly, with credit reporting agencies, we saw things in [1:04:37] the news that were concerning to us. We reached out to them. So we are doing the job. We're doing [1:04:41] it differently than past leadership. I think that if you were to ask a lot of consumers who are being [1:04:47] cheated right now, they would say that the fact that you only brought one case since February of 2025 [1:04:57] suggests it's your belief that there are not lots of scams out there that could be pursued. That's what [1:05:02] this agency was established for. Thank you for your time. To pursue those scams. And you're just not [1:05:06] doing it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Britt, before you start, here's what I'm going to do. [1:05:11] If you go over five minutes, I'm going to cut you off. That's just the way this is going to work from [1:05:15] this point forward. Thank you. Yeah, no, I'm well aware. I saw it yesterday. I'm going to keep it, [1:05:22] keep it right there. Thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. Let's actually pick up there. [1:05:27] So when you're looking at, tell me, tell me about the CFPB budget in general, kind of what numbers are you [1:05:34] working with big, big term? Right now, we have about $465 million as an annual budget, down from [1:05:43] $800 million under the previous director, who was kind of stockpiling funds for the new administration. [1:05:49] So let's also, so $800 million from the previous director. And it's my understanding that [1:05:54] he only spent about $28 million on educating consumers, protecting them against fraud, telling [1:06:02] them kind of what was out there and what to be looking for. Do you know if that's correct? [1:06:06] I don't have that at my fingertips, but I'm happy to confirm it later. Well, what I would think, [1:06:10] and you've got like about, I think, $3.8 billion in penalties, but if we are looking to actually [1:06:17] protect consumers, then we need to invest more in that. So certainly would have liked to have seen [1:06:25] that under the previous administration and hope that to the extent we continue anything, we continue, [1:06:32] we do a better job of educating people about what's in front of them. So I know you've already talked [1:06:37] about this with Senators Scott and Ricketts and Kennedy and others, but what should Congress learn [1:06:47] about over the last several years about the risk of giving one unelected director so much unchecked [1:06:55] authority? Well, I would say, Senator, the biggest issue is not the one director as much as it is not [1:07:01] being subject to the appropriations process which you sit under. The main defect was putting it under [1:07:06] the Fed in which you have no ability to have any sense of responsibility to come to Congress and justify [1:07:14] how you're running the agency. I mean, you come to do these semiannual reports, but when push comes to [1:07:18] shove as a member of the Appropriations Committee, that is your main source of accountability. And that is [1:07:24] what has made, I think, the agency have a little bit of an edge that has proven so problematic. [1:07:31] No, I completely agree. Let me ask you this. What changes have you made to the Bureau's enforcement [1:07:37] approach to ensure that enforcement's focused on clear violations rather than novel legal theories or [1:07:44] political priorities? I mean, what we found over the last several years is there's a lack of certainty. [1:07:49] When you're regulating by blog posts and people and you're actually trying to enforce, [1:07:56] you're creating laws through enforcement, it creates uncertainty that people need to know [1:08:02] exactly what the rules are so that they can follow them. Tell me what you've done to try to fix that. [1:08:08] We've been very clear with our priorities. We've stated those priorities. We've taken a lot of steps to [1:08:13] cancel enforcements that were done on novel legal theories that we didn't have the statute to do. [1:08:19] And we focused on identifiable victims, actual consumer harm that's material and measurable. [1:08:27] And we've also taken the view that if there are state regulators or other agencies taking action, [1:08:34] that they can take the lead on that and we will fill in the gaps. [1:08:37] Let's talk a little bit about 1071. I've been very concerned about the small business [1:08:45] lending rule and what it actually means for community banks. I think the compliance cost alone [1:08:51] is just astronomical for some. It puts real pressure on small lenders and also it raises privacy [1:08:58] concerns. It's something I spoke to the previous director about that I think that it would ultimately [1:09:04] report sensitive information and is not the way things should be done. Based on the Bureau's review, [1:09:12] what were the biggest problems with the 1071 rule and how would those burdens have affected community [1:09:18] banks' ability to actually serve main street businesses? Well, if that rule had gone into effect, [1:09:23] and thank you for your leadership on that, we were very concerned that small business lending would dry up. [1:09:30] And you raised the cost of information collection. We have one study that since the beginning of the CFPB, [1:09:37] there's been 29 million pages required of regulated entities, 14,000 FTEs needing to be hired just to do [1:09:45] the paperwork. And under 1071, 13 data fields were required, not over 80. And so none of these were [1:09:54] were aimed at what the statutory purpose was. And we slimmed it down to 16. And those extra three were [1:10:00] directly intertwined with the original 13. Well, I appreciate that. I think that it if one thing it [1:10:06] showed us was also just the importance of taking a look at the cumulative impact of all of these things. [1:10:12] And also, when you broaden that stuff, there's a real cost to it to consumer privacy and to the ability [1:10:19] to actually do good work. So thank you. Yeah. Well done, Senator Britt. Can you help my other folks [1:10:25] do the same? Thank you. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Vogt, let me ask [1:10:33] you this. Do you believe that veterans who have served this country and put their lives on the line [1:10:37] deserve support from the CFPB when they have been defrauded or there's some consumer protection issue? [1:10:44] Absolutely. And in fact, you believe it so much so, I think you have it in your humility pledge [1:10:50] that that's part of your statutory duty. Is that correct? Yes. So I'm going to submit for the record [1:10:56] a letter that I have here. Actually, it's a story from Las Vegas where I have a military veteran who [1:11:02] has a dispute with a mortgage lender. Unfortunately, he is not getting, thank you, is not getting any [1:11:08] response and support from the CFPB. Happy to take a look at it. I want more than that. I want to know what [1:11:14] you're actually doing for veterans. I want a reporting from the CFPB, your staff, what you're [1:11:21] doing to help veterans. If you think it's limited to a statutory duty, I want to know that. I want [1:11:27] a briefing from you and your office specifically what you're doing and that it's not being challenged [1:11:33] in the courts right now. Would you agree to do that for me? I'm leaving the post on office. I don't [1:11:38] care who's leaving. You're there right now. Send somebody to my office. Are you willing to do that? [1:11:43] We're happy to take a look at the request and consider it. So you will not give me a report? [1:11:47] Not in this moment, no. No, not at this moment. At some point in time, come to my office. We will [1:11:52] give you whatever information with regard to our work on veterans that you're asking for. Yeah, [1:11:57] thank you. I appreciate that. You know, it is not lost on me in your opening that you talk about how [1:12:06] the CFPB has been weaponized and that it is not following the law and it is out of control [1:12:16] because that is exactly what you're doing with the OMB. Since you've been there, [1:12:23] as the director of OMB, you have defunded programs and whole agencies. Congress authorized and [1:12:28] appropriated funds. Even though you're in your statement, you recognize we are the appropriators. [1:12:32] Thank you very much for recognizing that. You have delayed and denied funding for programs [1:12:36] Congress supported with law and money. You have supported the firing commissioners, the staff of [1:12:40] multiple federal agencies. You think this should be a bipartisan commission, but you support [1:12:44] eliminating all the Democrats that are on commissions on all these federal agencies. Experienced and [1:12:49] qualified people who had responsibility to solve problems for the American people, enhance our [1:12:54] standing in the world. Not only are prices higher because of the work that you have done in this [1:12:58] administration with the president, the world is more dangerous. Let me ask you this. You've been asked [1:13:03] about the housing trust fund. We have just passed a bipartisan bicameral housing trust fund, housing [1:13:10] fund to address the housing needs in this country. Your boss didn't support it. Are you committed to [1:13:16] sending the funds there when we appropriate those funds based on the bipartisan bicameral law that we [1:13:21] have passed when it comes to housing in the road 21st century housing bill? Senator, we have every [1:13:26] intention of apportioning all funds that have been appropriated. Without any, without any politics, [1:13:32] without any type of DEI or wokeism invoked into that? We're going to make sure that it's spent based [1:13:39] on the priorities of this administration, but we're going to do everything we can to get the money out [1:13:45] the door. Let me ask you, let me just say this to you, because based on your priorities, and I say this [1:13:50] truly, you're putting us in more danger. Let me just put, let me put a point on this. HIDA, which is the [1:13:56] high intensity drug trafficking areas that I have worked with as a former attorney general, their programs [1:14:01] across the country, their bipartisan support for them. They, they disrupt drug trafficking organizations [1:14:08] that combat the ongoing fentanyl crisis that your boss talks about all the time. They protect our [1:14:12] communities from drug addiction, overdoses, and crime. Your office, your office decided it was time [1:14:18] to delay funding to HIDA. You know what happened because of your delay? The delay was so severe that [1:14:24] HIDA programs had to furlough staff and scale back enforcement activities. That's what you're causing here. [1:14:32] And you have no authority to do so. And you always talk about court cases. The only reason we're in [1:14:37] court is because the court is challenging the decisions you have made in overruling them. [1:14:44] And all my ask is stop playing the games, stop playing the games, stop picking winners and losers. [1:14:52] If we send something to you in a bipartisan way, we hope you respect it. We hope you respect it. I am [1:15:00] frustrated because I have seen time and time again, your political info, you sit right here and you talk [1:15:05] about wokeism and the last administration and you always invoke the last administration. And the [1:15:10] only reason you are is because you know why who the administration was prior to that was the Trump [1:15:14] administration. They didn't go through this whole scale, miss illegally violating the appropriations [1:15:22] process. But now all of a sudden that's happening under your watch. You got a question. What is going on [1:15:29] here? So I appreciate it. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ma'am. Senator Banks. [1:15:35] Director Vogt, you've been the president's point man on shipbuilding. And I wanted to shift gears a [1:15:40] little bit if you don't mind and ask you about how that's going. You're well aware of the catastrophic [1:15:46] program failures of the LCS, the DDG-1000, the frigate. How are the president's efforts going? [1:15:55] How can we speed up the process of shipbuilding? And by the way, what can we learn from our allies? [1:16:00] You've talked before about the Finland model. What can we learn from our allies to fix this problem? [1:16:05] Thanks for the question, Senator. I'm always happy to talk about shipbuilding. [1:16:10] You know, the Finland model is probably one of the most important paradigm shifts that we have going [1:16:14] in shipbuilding. And it's not because we want to just purchase foreign ships. It's because we want [1:16:19] actual domestic investment. So the Finland model is with two companies, 11 icebreakers. We can't really [1:16:26] build icebreakers here in this country at scale. Finland knows how to do this. The first four are going [1:16:32] to be built in Finland in two different places. And then the next seven will be built in Florida and [1:16:38] in Galveston, Texas. One of those companies invested a billion dollars in the Galveston facility that [1:16:45] will make them a shipyard that can compete with other things domestically. And I will just tell you, [1:16:50] having been there to be part of the unveiling process, all of those American workers were extremely [1:16:57] excited about the jobs that would be coming from that. So I believe that is one of the most important [1:17:01] things that you could help us with. But again, putting additional pressure on our defense community [1:17:09] to manage their supply lines, to meet their deadlines. All of our programs are behind. And I've been to most [1:17:15] of the shipyards. They are getting faster. I think they're taking it seriously. But we need to keep the [1:17:21] pressure on and more competition, more yards, and to treat this as if we don't have the time because [1:17:28] that's our scarcest resource. What's your response to critics? Some of my colleagues who are critical of [1:17:37] that concept that you're taking jobs away from Americans and sending them to foreign countries. [1:17:44] I think it's absolutely wrong. Where we are doing this is where we are either behind or where we need [1:17:50] needed added capacity. For instance, no one's going to be taking DDGs away from Mississippi or Maine. [1:17:57] But we need the opportunity to have other countries provide additional shipyards that can add more [1:18:04] and scale to what we're doing. And there are auxiliary ships as well that we just, you know, [1:18:11] they're the last priority right now. And if we're going to have either additional Navy capacity or [1:18:17] more commercial shipping, I'll be up in Philadelphia tomorrow for a Marad christening. [1:18:24] If we're going to do that, we're going to need more yards and have business that's coming into those [1:18:29] yards. The big, beautiful bill gave a substantial amount of money toward using artificial intelligence [1:18:35] and shipbuilding. Do you have an update on that? Maybe more? Well, I think I don't, not with specificity, [1:18:41] but you're seeing the impact in our operations overseas. You're seeing the extent to which these [1:18:46] boats are already on the water being used effectively. I think one of them was a search [1:18:52] and rescue of an airman. And so, you know, that is an incredible example of innovation. [1:18:59] And I know that the secretary is pushing very hard on innovation in this area. President Trump's 2027 [1:19:06] budget request includes a historic $1.5 trillion for our national defense, including $350 billion in [1:19:14] mandatory spending. Last month, you sent an $87.6 billion supplemental request to Congress for [1:19:20] urgent needs stemming from Operation Fury, Epic Fury. And this week, the Democrats voted against the [1:19:27] moving forward with the NDAA because of the scale, they say, of those of the of that figure. [1:19:33] Can you help explain in concrete terms why these requests are so important? [1:19:39] Well, this is a one time level of $1.5 trillion. It's not intended to be each year. But the reason [1:19:45] why it's one time is we have a particular moment in time with the leadership that we have, with the [1:19:50] president that we have, where we're trying to get the industry to scale, not just add another shift, [1:19:57] build new facilities and states across the country. And so we think there's a business case to do that. [1:20:03] It's kind of a head scratcher that they didn't already. But to the extent that we need to do [1:20:07] multi-year procurement agreements with the money right now so that they can then distribute to [1:20:12] their supply chain, we have to do that now. And we need the money up front. So that's why we're [1:20:16] doing areas of munitions, but also things like F-35s. This is this is our moment in time. And we can't [1:20:23] miss the miss the it's really about supporting our men and women in uniform, right? Absolutely. [1:20:27] Thank you. I yield back. Great example. Senator Smith. [1:20:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vogt, I want to understand a bit better this OMB [1:20:38] recently proposed rule that would give power over discretionary federal grants to the OMB [1:20:42] director and to a handful of political appointees. I'm talking about how this rule empowers senior [1:20:49] political appointees to conduct so-called pre-issuance reviews of discretionary grants to make sure that [1:20:55] they, and I quote, advance the president's policy priorities, unquote, and do not, among other [1:21:01] things, promote, quote, anti-American values. So my first question is, is it your view that you have [1:21:09] the authority to put the wishes or the priorities of the president and his political appointees ahead [1:21:15] of the will of Congress who authorized these federal laws and that the federal government should [1:21:21] be implementing and doing what Congress said that should do? No. A couple of things I would just [1:21:27] say there. Number one, all these NOFOs are not going through OMB. Some may, some may not. But there [1:21:34] is nothing apart of 2 CFR or the executive order that it stems from that causes all NOFOs go through OMB. [1:21:42] Secondly, with regard to the statutes and the appropriations process, we're not defying the will of [1:21:48] Congress. You give us discretion about how we spend money. That is what the executive branch agencies do. [1:21:55] And we're going to do that in line with this president's objectives and not career staff. [1:22:00] So the clear feeling amongst folks in my home state is that what's happening is that there is a political [1:22:06] screen that is being imposed on grants. And here's an example of one of these situations. One of my [1:22:12] constituents in Minnesota was participating in an NIH-funded clinical trial to treat stomach cancer. [1:22:18] The trial was canceled, unexpectedly halted. This person never received their surgery and the trial [1:22:25] never resumed. And I've got to tell you to the researchers and physicians in Minnesota and the [1:22:30] patients, this smacks of political interference in a health grant that seems as if the rule that you [1:22:37] are proposing would sanction. Here's another example I want to ask you about. I'd like your response to [1:22:43] this. So top researchers in Minnesota recently made a breakthrough in detecting and treating cancer [1:22:49] in kids with a National Cancer Institute grant. And what the study did is it looked at what makes [1:22:54] African American children more likely to die from blood and bone cancer. So it seems to me, [1:23:00] according to your proposed rule, this kind of research wouldn't be allowed. You wouldn't fund it [1:23:04] because you believe that studying why American children with African ancestry get cancer and [1:23:10] would would and die from it would conflict with your anti-DEI rules. So is is it true that that's how [1:23:17] you see this rule being imposed here? How are DEI policies of which we are we are against DEI policies. We've [1:23:25] we have intended to get rid of DEI policies wherever we possibly can. So what impact would it how that would [1:23:30] impact with that particular grant would be a decision for a political official policy official at the at [1:23:37] NIH. That is why the NIH director would be making that determination to be able to marry up the the [1:23:45] intent of a program. There's a whole institute for disparity. So a political appointee would be in the [1:23:50] position according to your proposed rule of deciding whether this health grant studying why black kids in [1:23:56] this country are more likely to get sick and die from blood and brain cancer. They would be the one [1:24:00] who decides whether this grant should be uh allowed and not the scientists and the doctors and the people [1:24:06] who know about preventing cancer. Senator, we believe that it is important to have the executive agency's [1:24:13] leadership, the cabinet secretaries, their under secretaries, the people that are in charge that from [1:24:19] who have come in with this administration to make the final decisions and that doesn't mean they don't [1:24:25] benefit from the use of from career recommendations from peer review studies. All of that will be taken to [1:24:31] an account. But the days of us funding CRT because our agency heads didn't know it was going on, we're not [1:24:38] doing that anymore. Would you say that this particular grant that I just described to you [1:24:41] That's a decision for the director of NIH to make. Would conflict with the DEI rules that the age that your [1:24:46] administration is? I think it would be a granular discussion that the director of NIH would have to make a [1:24:51] decision on. I think this is just an example of the you know the absurdity and the bias of this [1:24:57] proposed rule and the danger of what happens when you bring political ideology into grant making [1:25:02] processes particularly around health care. I mean researchers across the country including in Minnesota [1:25:09] are making breakthroughs in medical advances and it is not a place for political appointees to be [1:25:14] putting their finger on the scale and saying nope this seems too woke for me and therefore these kids [1:25:19] aren't going to get the help that they want. Thank you Mr. Chair. I have no more questions or not. [1:25:25] Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Director Vogt have you or anyone you know ever had a medical emergency? [1:25:33] Of course. Do you personally know anyone who has ever gone into debt because of a medical emergency? [1:25:39] Yes. When the president or before the president took office the CFPB finalized a rule that would have [1:25:47] removed almost 50 billion dollars in medical debt from the credit reports of tens of millions of [1:25:55] Americans. Debt which by the way is often incorrect but direct to vote within months of your taking office [1:26:02] the CFPB reversed itself and joined with the very same debt collectors who were set to profit off medical [1:26:11] debt to over overturn this rule. How did your decision in any way help those tens of millions of Americans, [1:26:19] some of whom are watching today being crushed by nearly 50 billion dollars in medical debt? How is this [1:26:25] helpful for them? Senator, the statute specifically ensures that credit reporting agencies can take [1:26:30] into account medical debt. So until you change that statute we don't have the ability to just regulate [1:26:36] however we want to. Well you you could have tried to narrow the rule right? No we really could not have. You [1:26:41] could have tried to fight it in court. No our we we our oath is to the statutes that you have passed to [1:26:48] to faithfully execute those laws. You were not able to fight it in court. Not what we could just win in [1:26:52] court about. That's not something you could have fought in court. Not if we have a fundamental [1:26:56] disagreement about what the statute requires. You and I can agree to disagree. I think you chose not [1:27:01] to fight it in court and you joined forces with those debt collectors. A year ago I along with nearly 30 of [1:27:07] my colleagues demanded answers from you about this decision and I request unanimous consent to enter our letter [1:27:15] and to the record. You never responded. Do you ever respond do you ever plan to respond to my letter? [1:27:25] Much of the correspondence that we've gotten has to do with litigation that we're a part of and so [1:27:30] we can't speak and respond to letters of which we're going to have to provide answers in court [1:27:35] and that is a reality that we face. But we do intend to to have a very open relationship with [1:27:42] Congress and I'm happy to correspond with you on a regular basis. Do you ever plan to respond to our letter? [1:27:48] I'm leaving the post on August 1st so there's a lot of things that hopefully Brian Johnson will [1:27:53] be doing and one of those is is those types of correspondence. You're leaving on August 1st you've [1:28:00] done quite a bit of damage in in in a few months. We had a simple ask show your work publicly disclose [1:28:07] the data and the analysis to justify the CFPB's position that the medical debt rule was unnecessary or [1:28:15] unlawful. Since you didn't respond I'll ask you now how many Americans were projected to have their [1:28:22] medical debt wiped from their credit scores by the CFPB's medical debt rule which you overturned? [1:28:29] I don't know but the rule was unlawful. The answer is 15 million. Medical debt can [1:28:35] ruin credit scores which can make it impossible for folks to ever buy a home. Do you know how many more [1:28:43] mortgages consumers would have been able to afford each year if you hadn't overturned the rule? I don't [1:28:54] have that off the top of my head so the answer is 22,000. So 22,000 mortgages that consumers would [1:29:03] have been able to afford 15 million Americans who were set to have their medical debt wiped from their [1:29:12] credit scores. I've seen this up close in the state of Georgia and the the impact the the real human [1:29:22] costs behind the very cold and clinical language about statutory authority authority which I think you [1:29:34] do have questions that you could have raised CFPB by its its nature is is is advocating for everyday [1:29:42] consumers and I don't see how any of your actions suggest that you've been been advocating for the [1:29:48] people that I represent. It seems to me that this shouldn't be a partisan issue people on both sides of [1:29:53] the aisle know that medical emergencies can happen to anybody they can happen to anyone we've seen that up [1:30:02] close in this very body over the last few weeks but thanks to you there are now families who cannot buy a [1:30:10] house they're hounded by debt collectors and they're denied business loans all because they got sick [1:30:16] direct to vote you've spent the last 18 months decimating the CFPB and its consumer protections [1:30:22] and I think families across America would be that better off when you're gone. I'd like a response [1:30:27] to my letter. Senator Blunt Rochester is actually next. Thank you Mr. Chairman and for holding this [1:30:34] hearing on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when I hear the bureau's name the two words that stand [1:30:42] out for me are consumers and protection. This agency has brought 21 billion dollars to American consumers [1:30:52] it's been a watchdog and in a time where people are struggling to make ends meet it is probably more [1:30:58] important now than ever. Director of Vote you said the CFPB is now focused on what you call quote action [1:31:08] actual actual identifiable consumer harm and I'd like to see how the standard applies to the people [1:31:18] that we in Congress have created the CFPB for. A few of my colleagues have already brought up our [1:31:26] veterans and our military families and last month we had a hearing on housing we actually had a hearing [1:31:35] on affordability and I raised concerns about military families and the CFPB's role in forcing the Military [1:31:41] Lending Act. To me our financial security is tied to our military readiness and since 2011 service members [1:31:52] from every state and every military base have filed more than 400,000 complaints with the CFPB which tells [1:31:59] me that they believe that the bureau was somewhere they could turn to when something went wrong. Is the [1:32:05] military lending act by violation against an active duty memp some service member actual consumer harm by [1:32:14] your definition like when they actually go through these challenges with as someone said whether it's [1:32:20] a car dealership or a payday lender. Yes of course and we prioritize it in our guidance. And you did say [1:32:25] that you prioritize it can you tell me since you've been in the position has the enforcement increased [1:32:31] decreased or stayed the same. Well it's specific in terms of enforcement versus supervision and how [1:32:38] we enforcement and how we uh deal with increased increased or stayed the same. We take it very [1:32:44] tight time frame. We take it very seriously. You said you take it seriously it's in your your humility pledge [1:32:50] is it has it increased decreased or stayed the same since you've been in office. We believe that we have a [1:32:54] heightened focus on military. Can you share the data with us to let us know. Sure. Okay because that's [1:33:00] what reporting is about. Increase decrease or stayed the same. Again you report it as a priority but we [1:33:07] don't see the results of it. The same is true. I've worked on bipartisan legislation clean slate legislation [1:33:13] to help people who have returned to their communities. They deserve a second chance. Your CFPB withdrew guidance [1:33:21] that was intended to improve the accuracy of background screening reports. Would you consider [1:33:27] a person losing a job or an apartment because the background check report includes an expunged record [1:33:33] or fails to show charges were dismissed as an example of an actual consumer harm? We have deep prioritized [1:33:42] those uh those types of uh endeavors which was a hallmark of the previous director. Okay so you've [1:33:49] deprioritized that um you say that you care about service members but you don't know how many you've [1:33:58] helped or not helped. The website on the portal and I'd love to get you follow up information for it. I'm [1:34:04] happy to do that. If it's a priority I would think that would be in your in what you have before you [1:34:10] you would know it. You also have deleted or removed thousands of pages from the website. This is supposed to [1:34:19] be a watchdog agency. People should be able to go there and find information that helps them [1:34:25] with payday lending scams or or medical debt or things like that. Senator that's false. [1:34:32] Actually it's not false. There there there's reporting that you have taken away. There's reporting [1:34:37] and you put it in archives. Which is what every administration does. Some of it. The Obama administration [1:34:43] should do that. This this is my time. These are things that that consumers need. These are resources. [1:34:49] Know your rights. These are things that people need easy access to not to go find an archive. That's [1:34:55] that's number one. And then also I just wanted to give you an opportunity in the last bit of time that [1:34:59] I have left. Um first of all I agree with Senator Warner. The the assault on federal workers and on people [1:35:09] who serve us every day has been palpable. And I I could give you a grade on that. But you're when [1:35:16] you said I want to give you an opportunity to clarify. You said that cdi uh cdfis are woke. This [1:35:23] is bipartisan. We worked on it all together. What do you mean by cdfis are woke? It means that they [1:35:31] and how do you define woke? Because that's another thing this administration says they don't want to [1:35:36] they don't believe in woke. But then the president said there's not a definition for woke. How do you [1:35:40] define woke? You all have to continue this conversation. I'd I'd love for him to answer [1:35:46] that last question. Because it it implicates all of us. Certainly understand your or cdfis. Senator [1:35:52] Kim the floor is yours. Look I'll give uh I'll give the director a chance to be able to respond. Thank [1:35:56] you senator. It's dividing people on the basis of race and identity. Just give example 6.2 million for [1:36:01] clearinghouse cdfi which hosted a pride fashion show called sashay the runway promoting transgender [1:36:08] housing. Dividing based on race. Look uh let me let me pick up in a in a similar place. One is that [1:36:19] I led a letter alongside senator warren about uh requesting information about your recent efforts [1:36:25] overhaul of the cfpb consumer complaints portal. I have real concerns about this overhaul. I mean first [1:36:31] there's no legal requirement that consumers first dispute a credit reporting complaint with their [1:36:36] credit reporting company or wait 45 days before reaching out to the cfpb. So I guess I wanted to [1:36:43] ask you why is this happening? Why is this fundamental tool that has helped so many Americans something [1:36:50] that you're putting more restrictions on top of? Senator there is a requirement under the law to go [1:36:55] first to the credit reporting agency but it's to why the portal is exploding because of a phenomena [1:37:01] in the marketplace with bots and people and influencers suggesting that if you submit multiple [1:37:09] uh submissions to the portal that it guarantees that their credit reporting will be fixed that if [1:37:14] there is an actual problem with their credit uh report that if they just call it fraud that that's [1:37:20] going to be fixed if it puts how many of the 5.8 million consumers who are filed do you say fall under [1:37:26] that category as it pertains to the credit reporting or the are you asking about the about the bots and [1:37:32] the other things that you're saying that we're trying to assess that but but massive numbers and one of [1:37:36] the reasons like 30 30 days 45 days with an extension uh isn't that where you would want to direct people [1:37:44] immediately get your get your complaint into the person the company that can actually fix it we will do [1:37:50] our best and we will we will submit all of the complaints to the CRA i just want to share with [1:37:55] you this has been an incredibly effective tool for so many people in new jersey and they have been [1:38:01] really frustrated about these restrictions i want to pass it along to you because i've been hearing from [1:38:06] so many that have used this in the past and are now saying why is this change you know a woman named [1:38:10] mary telling me how she was able to use this to be able to get paid out of something that she sold online [1:38:15] these are the types of real problem solving that we're trying to address i want to just shift gears [1:38:20] here for a second uh you know you talked about just some of the challenges that we're seeing right [1:38:25] now about uh paying out grants and and proposals i wanted to just check in with you about fema for [1:38:32] instance this is something where senator gary peters and i have sent forward a letter talking about this [1:38:38] discrepancy here where we've seen approval rates for red states remain at about 89 percent whereas for blue [1:38:45] states that's dropped down to 23 a 66 difference whereas in the past we've seen this roughly equal [1:38:52] historically can you explain to the american people why the white house when they're receiving these [1:38:58] proposals from fema seems to be taking a different path the only path that we're taking is to be a very [1:39:04] good steward of taxpayer resources so we are reviewing these these fema uh requests uh but we are not doing [1:39:11] on the basis of of of any political agenda and we are doing uh we're trying to make sure that every [1:39:18] dollar spent is is spent wisely so you're saying no politics involved we're making sure that all of [1:39:25] this money is going out uh on the basis of a sound use of taxpayer dollars i cannot comprehend and accept [1:39:32] that answer because what we've seen historically is fema doling out the resources of the american people to [1:39:39] american people who are in challenge and harm's way from disasters that has been equal this is a clear [1:39:45] outlier that is happening fema has a review process that is credible and some adds predictability to [1:39:53] process and your administration has clearly and the white house in particular has clearly gone a different [1:39:58] path the last thing i just want to raise building off of what senator smith said earlier the real concern [1:40:05] right now about scientific and medical research especially when it comes to your administration [1:40:11] cutting off uh or potentially cutting off support scientific research often goes years beyond just [1:40:18] the four years of a particular administration basing it based off of just the priorities of one single [1:40:23] administration can be hugely damaging do you understand that let me give you an example from even the [1:40:29] obama administration the obama asking you if you understand the damage the obama administration had a [1:40:35] policy against gain-of-function research tony fauci violated that policy and did get going to gain-of-function [1:40:42] research a political appointee should have been able to ensure that funds did not go to the woo echo [1:40:48] health alliance and to the wuhan institute that is the type of supervision that is important on a [1:40:54] bipartisan basis and should be a hallmark on it's a clear damage that you're pushing for i hope you move [1:40:59] in a different direction with that i yield back thank you senator gallego thank you uh active director vote uh [1:41:06] at your nomination here um for omb director you look me and many of us here directly in the eye and you [1:41:13] sworn your oath that this administration would protect veterans and their benefits uh today my [1:41:19] opinion your record really shows a totally different story because you certainly have not protected the [1:41:22] office of service members affairs and from what we're hearing right now is that you want to cut [1:41:27] its staff in half so how is gutting that office that exists to defend service members anything but really [1:41:34] truly abandoning them well your senator senator your question is presuming a rift that is not in [1:41:38] place right now we have taken this as a very big priority uh we've been made it a priority in our [1:41:44] enforcement guidelines uh but you are you are from an educational so you are planning to cut staff [1:41:49] from that well consolidate where we can make consolidations but but so but but to be clear you're [1:41:55] going to be cutting a very important office that is very important for service members to actually [1:41:59] have protections or when it comes to consumer protections we believe that we can have consolidated [1:42:04] uh workflows at the at the bureau that continue to make this a priority well i certainly don't [1:42:11] think that that's the case but that's how you choose to staff now let's look at how you actually [1:42:15] choose to enforce the law so navy failed credit union was caught charging its members millions in [1:42:19] illegals to uh and uh surprise overdraft fees these members are active duty veterans dod employees and their [1:42:26] families i was once a young marine every dollar really does matter when you're a young marine [1:42:30] and the last cfpv ordered navy federal to pay a 15 million dollar penalty and refund more than 80 [1:42:37] million dollars back to those service members pockets i think that's a very just outcome uh but [1:42:42] you tore up that consent order am i correct it was based on a decision of which the previous administration [1:42:51] had put out guidance that was not lawful okay when the the company was then penalized for it there [1:42:58] was no grounds for that consent order did any of that 80 million dollars go back to any of those [1:43:03] veterans when you tore that up they paid their 15 million in the penalty they paid the 15 million but [1:43:08] the people that actually had were ripped off a navy federal credit union did not get anything they [1:43:14] weren't they weren't the previous order would the previous order would have given those 80 million dollars [1:43:19] back to the people that were ripped and that would have been paid by service members and the navy [1:43:23] federal credit but right now for a fact we know that they're not getting the 80 million dollars back [1:43:29] the issue underlying issue was no no your decision basically means that these men and women [1:43:34] who are ripped off are not getting 80 million dollars back because the previous order actually would [1:43:39] have done that it was illegal it's not illegal it was just and you just basically tore up and you [1:43:43] didn't replace it by anything so like these men and women are now left 80 million dollars because there's [1:43:47] no authority to deal with overdraft fees which by the way makes sure that we have overdraft fee [1:43:53] protection there was an order specifically designed to bring restitution to these veterans that were [1:43:58] incredibly ripped off and you could have found another way to do it but instead you just let them [1:44:02] continue to be ripped off and that that is your decision and so just to follow up with that the native [1:44:07] federal is just one of the 42 enforcement actions that your cfpb has dropped or rolled back for the other [1:44:14] companies you left off the hook all together how many of those 42 companies and law breakers had [1:44:21] discussions with you or anyone in the cfpb omb or the white house about dropping weakening retracting [1:44:28] any of these orders and please i remind you you're under i have no idea you have no idea i don't make [1:44:33] decisions based on who approaches me i make it well you made a decision on navy federal credit you ripped [1:44:38] off a lot of veterans at least up to the tune of 80 million dollars you didn't make that decision right [1:44:43] i certainly made the decision with regard to you're not making the other further decisions somehow [1:44:47] i made the decision with every one of those cons with those consent orders enforcement actions so [1:44:52] for the import about for the 42 companies you just don't know you're asking what uh interactions [1:44:58] our external affairs has with various stakeholders of which we have an open door policy with anyone so [1:45:05] if you're no matter where you are on a policy basis we're having conversations with everyone have you [1:45:10] had any of those conversations about rolling back some of these orders some of these uh penalties [1:45:14] or anything and that to the best of your knowledge and you don't have to give me a round number every [1:45:18] decision that i have made has been based on this so now you are making decisions because like about [1:45:22] you know two three cents ago said you're not making decisions said actually every decision that i [1:45:26] have made which is the entirety of the decisions at cfpb under my my tenure has been based on the law [1:45:34] the the the common sense approach to the the way that we have run the department okay sure if that's [1:45:41] the case will you provide the logs of all your meetings and the minutes we will comply with all [1:45:46] foil laws on the books i'm not going to i'm not asking about well i'm asking you to no i'm not as [1:45:50] oversight of of as our oversight capability here and capacity i think we should have a right to see [1:45:56] these log books we will comply with all foil laws that's not what i'm asking i'm asking for you to [1:46:01] provide us for actual logs communications with these 42 companies senator's time is up senator also [1:46:08] brooks has the floor thank you so much uh chair scott and ranking member uh warren and um director vote [1:46:16] i have been waiting uh to have the opportunity to come back face to face with you um to ask for an [1:46:23] explanation for what i regard as absolutely depraved depraved i use that word again and draconian actions [1:46:31] to decimate our public institutions politicize federal grant programs to stall funding for nih and [1:46:39] for cdc public health programs harming our research institutions dismantling the cfpb and i have to tell [1:46:46] you i couldn't wait to get here on behalf of the 160 000 federal employees in my state the the actions [1:46:54] taken toward our federal employees has been evil absolutely evil and it is the most galling aspect of [1:47:00] what i regard as shameful tenure at the omb as director uh is has been your outright animosity [1:47:08] and blatant hostility toward our federal workers and i haven't made this up in fact i'm going to read [1:47:13] your own words that you famously said without remorse you said we want the bureaucrats to be [1:47:19] dramatically affected when they wake up in the morning we want them to not want to go to work because [1:47:25] they are increasingly regarded as the villain this is so evil and the 150 000 federal workers who are [1:47:33] in my state who come together these are the patriots of our country who've worked many of them for [1:47:38] decades they didn't care whether the president was a democrat or republican they are here to serve the [1:47:43] american people and they will not forget how they were treated and what was said and neither will i [1:47:48] and in fact one marylander who lost his federal job said the following i can't tell you how terrifying [1:47:56] it is to be a parent of two children faced with the thought that you cannot provide for your family [1:48:02] so i ask you is that the kind of trauma that you were talking about did you intend to sow terror for [1:48:10] parents who need to provide for their families is that the kind of trauma that you were anticipating [1:48:15] senator i've explained those comments on numerous occasions i was referring to bureaucracies and not [1:48:21] the career civil servants that do the job many of those bureaucracies are weaponized against the [1:48:26] american people we've taken steps to deal with that but as it pertains to civil servants i have a very [1:48:31] high regard for them uh and the work that they do well i think the words speak for themselves i really [1:48:37] do i don't think anybody can say that combination of words and have it be explicable it is inexplicable and [1:48:43] and you continue to traumatize them this fall by issuing a memo uh directing agencies to prepare [1:48:49] for mass firings firings that i might know the coke court later found were illegal so did the workers [1:48:55] deserve because they feel traumatized they were here i saw them they were lining up in these hallways [1:49:01] talking to me uh many of them in tears is it senator you shouldn't have shut the government down for more [1:49:06] than two months on two separate occasions you don't think that traumatized the same federal workers [1:49:10] well you know what again let me just say this the jedi mind trick does not work the republicans around [1:49:16] here are in charge of everything the house they need your vote white house bipartisan well you know [1:49:21] what again it's i'm going to go to my next question but i will not fall for the jedi mind trick that when [1:49:26] the republicans have the keys to the kingdom that anything uh regarding a shutdown has to do with [1:49:31] democrats but again can you tell me how much did how much did money did the cuts save the american [1:49:38] taxpayer all of these cuts how much how much did it save us well we had the most successful fiscal [1:49:45] year that we've had i believe in history in 2025 we ended fiscal futility in this country we saved about [1:49:52] 15 billion dollars uh below uh the level that you were able to do with the continuing resolution [1:49:59] we passed rescissions bills for the first time since 1992 we were able to [1:50:03] uh support an appropriations process that led to 20 billion dollars less than the previous year [1:50:10] uh outside of those two shutdowns which were uh something that we fought against very hard [1:50:15] well let me just because my time is totally sir i do have another question i would beg to differ that this [1:50:20] has been uh fiscally successful and if you call fiscally successful whatever these cuts are people still [1:50:26] cannot afford their groceries gas utilities uh so if you regard this as a fiscally successful i you know still [1:50:33] beg the difference but i want to turn to cfpb very quickly because it seems that you're doing [1:50:38] everything in your power to make things more unaffordable for american families including trying [1:50:42] to fire half of the workforce at the agency that has returned 21 billion dollars to consumers on april 16th [1:50:50] i led many of my colleagues in a letter requesting information on this incredibly short-sighted proposal [1:50:56] and noting that this plan would force reductions of 80 percent within cfpb's office of enforcement which is [1:51:02] literally tasked with enforcing consumer financial laws and holding financial service providers [1:51:07] accountable you haven't responded to our letter in in three months i hope that you will um but how [1:51:13] can the cfpb meet its statutory uh enforcement obligations with only one-third of its enforcement [1:51:20] staff unfortunately the senator's time is up so i will not allow the witness to respond to the question [1:51:25] thank you we will have that as a question for the record which will give the uh by next thursday it [1:51:32] will give the director uh acting director or the sure official director if we get a change in [1:51:39] administration there uh 45 days to respond to that so while i'm cutting you off and taking the liberty to [1:51:45] explain what we're going to do i will ask that that question be submitted for the record okay that [1:51:50] director the director the acting director vote leaves before the 45 day clock is up i will come ask the [1:51:58] next person in charge to answer your question thank you thank you senator tillis thank you mr chairman mr [1:52:06] bott thank you for being here tell me the one um doge initiative that you think is the best example of [1:52:16] uh of the work that was done under what before doge was uh quiesced in cfpb or you can go anywhere else [1:52:23] but just give me the best example of what you thought was an exquisite realization of value that [1:52:29] came through cuts that worked their way through the doge office well i do believe that the reductions in [1:52:35] force as a uh tool which specific one in general yeah but but i want i want to get specifics you and [1:52:43] you and i have different backgrounds mine was in enterprise implementation i did this for a living [1:52:48] um and so i don't want to word salad well i'm it's not word salad senator cfpb i'm trying to do a [1:52:54] reduction for but i'm just asking you across the board give me one best because here's what i'm asking [1:52:58] for uh the doge office has been quiesced okay um but there were a lot of claims of billions and [1:53:06] billions of dollars in savings i simply want to know where you booked them and where i can see it [1:53:11] i didn't run doge senator mr uh you are omb right i am but i am not doge you do track but you do track [1:53:19] the to me and when i worked in business and we had to implement efficiency we got engaged to come in [1:53:27] do activity-based accounting whatever was necessary to identify the efficiencies then we go to the ceos [1:53:33] and say part of this is going to be a reduction in force we're going to do this in a methodical manner [1:53:38] the number one thing we want to do is absolutely have a reduction in force that looks at our best [1:53:43] and brightest that 18 to 25 percent of the organization and make damn sure that they don't [1:53:49] get at your fire notice and then we would send out a reduction in force and an efficiencies program [1:53:54] that does people technology and infrastructure give me an example of where that was done over the [1:53:58] year that doge was in place well i think the extent to which we because then let me back up the [1:54:03] reason i'm targeting you is because i look at you as the guy who books the savings after we work [1:54:09] let's say we work with whatever department it is then we got the savings we come to you and we say mr [1:54:14] vaught this is no longer going to be a part of our expense run rate you can actually tell the [1:54:19] administration that we can decrement that cost because we've cut the savings give me the best [1:54:25] example of where doge has done that well i have been saying in terms of no because give me the best [1:54:30] example of where a doge initiative senator once they completed the work came to you and said mr vaught [1:54:36] you should be aware that our baseline run rate for expenses have gone down give me one we have [1:54:43] an appropriations process senator i'm sorry there is an appropriations process we have put forward [1:54:48] a budget that's 160 billion dollars in doge savings i've heard a lot of people including you [1:54:54] talk about the doge savings i've worked in the business well my my understanding is the last time [1:54:59] you worked in the business world was at b dalton books when you were putting yourself through law [1:55:03] school good on you but you don't have this experience and a lot of people that were involved [1:55:08] in this do not have this experience i love the idea of doge but what i don't love is the idea of [1:55:14] doge that we're picking up because people did it wrong i spelled it with a dollar sign by the way mr [1:55:21] chair but at the end of the day we've got to be honest with the american people we had people running [1:55:27] through here and talking about all the savings at the end of the day book it every single one of [1:55:32] these things should have before after net savings and run rate for cost and mr vaught if you would [1:55:41] submit for the record i may have caught you flat-footed on this one and i apologize for that you don't have [1:55:46] to apologize but there's 160 billion dollars and this is gonna be real simple you don't have to do [1:55:52] anything except present to me i did the budget consultation for the record in written form a [1:56:00] consultation with the government agency that had the most documented and sustainable savings so that [1:56:07] i can go back to north carolina and explain where doge was successful because right now i'm picking up a [1:56:13] lot of bags of people who are some of the most experienced people leaving scientists leaving nih at [1:56:21] these random you were fired oh i'm sorry you weren't wrong email address all that stuff is amateur stuff [1:56:27] that would have gotten me fired in my job at price water house in a week i want to see but but i'm [1:56:33] willing i'm willing to be um open to it you got a best case i love being proved wrong when i'm coming [1:56:39] out and saying something i'm very disappointed with i would love nothing more than a briefing before this [1:56:45] committee on the extraordinary work of identify the target achieve the target book the savings [1:56:51] and inform the appropriations process i'd love to see at least one of those for the record thank you [1:56:56] ranking member warren for closing comments thank you mr chairman mr chairman i want to use this [1:57:04] opportunity to correct the record on acting votes response to senator warner about his past comments [1:57:11] and his intent to traumatize federal workers acting director vote there is a video of you [1:57:19] when you were president of the senator for center for renewing america and it was published by pro publica [1:57:25] in october 2024 in which you say and i will quote you to yourself we want the bureaucrats to be [1:57:33] traumatically affected when they wake up in the morning we want them not to go to work because they [1:57:40] are increasingly viewed as villains and then you go on to say we want to put them in trauma and yet you [1:57:51] sat here this morning look senator warner directly in the eye and said you didn't say that i just want [1:57:58] to close here by going back where i said it was referring to my right option at the cfpb is costing american [1:58:07] families so far it has cost them an estimated 26.5 billion dollars toyota navy credit capital one apple [1:58:17] bank of america walmart and more no matter how many people you have hurt if you've got the cash [1:58:25] donald trump and mr vote have a pardon for you thank you for your very closing comments i'll simply say [1:58:33] that the fact of the matter on today's hearing is that the characterization of the director acting [1:58:41] director ripping off veterans i think is not only false but it is salacious as it relates to the laws [1:58:49] that were not written by this congress not being able to be enforced by this acting director second [1:58:55] thing i'd say is that according to also senator also brooks the question about government shuts shut down [1:59:01] it takes 60 votes to overcome a shutdown nearly every republican voted to keep the government [1:59:08] opened nearly every democrat if not every single democrat voted to shut the government down those [1:59:14] are just facts as well finally i'd say that as it relates to a simple rhetorical question that i have [1:59:21] what is the impact when credit scores are no longer reliable because some folks with good intentions dilute [1:59:30] the effectiveness of objective information leads to fewer people having access to credit more people [1:59:37] receiving higher rates and a negative impact overall for senators who wish to submit questions for [1:59:45] the hearing record those questions are due one week from today thursday july 23rd acting director or [1:59:53] his successor will have up to 45 days from that day to submit your responses to the to the questions for [2:00:00] the record thank you the committee is adjourned