The Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

She found them. Uh, Allison found them. Well, good morning. Committee on Financial Services will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. Today's hearing is entitled "The Semi-annual Report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection". Without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair. for inclusion in the record, I now recognize myself for a four minute opening statement. I want to thank Acting Director for Consumer Financial Protection, Russ Volt, for being with us today. Today's hearing will gives us an opportunity to review the CFPB's semi-annual report, and examine the significant changes underway at the CFPB under President Trump and Acting Director Volt's leadership. The question that we should keep at the forefront of today's conversation is What can Congress do to ensure that the CFPB remains accountable, transparent, and faithful to its mission of consumer protection? Since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is too often operated as an overreaching regulator. Partisan priorities have driven burdensome regulations and duplicative supervision that fail to account for their impact on the consumer's access to credit, and discourage innovation. Rather than acting as a fair and transparent regulator, too frequently the CFPB has often allowed ideology to drive its policy-making resulting in overly burdensome regulatory overreach. Financial institutions, particularly smaller banks and credit unions, have reported increased compliance burdens that make their operations unnecessarily difficult. The result was not more protection for consumers, but more paperwork for the community banking industry, fewer choices for working families in product design, and restrictions on innovation in everything from small dollar credit access to digital payments. Under President Trump's leadership, the CFPB has begun to pull back from being an unaccountable super regulator and toward being a more focused agency that focuses on protecting consumers from actual genuine harm. The CFPB has stopped regulating by informal guidance and back towards a more disciplined approach grounded in clear rules. It has moved to stop or undo the worst excesses of prior years, including rules and enforcement strategies that punished lawful business models second-guess market prices and tried to micromanage terms and products that consumers use every day. These administrative actions are an important first step, but in my view, uh, these alone are not enough. A future director could reverse these actions in this much needed direction with the stroke of a pen, creating wild swings in policy that are bad for consumers, bad for the financial services industry trying to serve those consumers, and then the economy at large. That's why this committee is advancing a comprehensive set of CFPB reforms. These legislative reforms establish the durable guardrails that would out- outlast any single director of the agency by clarifying the CFPB's statutory authorities, strengthening the due process, restoring transparency, promoting a coordinated and risk-based supervision, and preventing regulation by enforcement. Congress has the responsibility to create that more durable framework for the CFPB and provide the oversight necessary to ensure it stays true to its mission. These reforms are designed to ensure adequate consumer protection while also giving financial institutions and firms certainty they need to compete, innovate, and expand access to affordable financial products and services. I look forward to hearing from Acting Director Volk today about the real-world consequences of the CFPB's past policies and how his work to correct that and set forward this more permanent durable framework can uh move forward. And so I thank him for being here, I yield back, and I recognize the ranking member of our committee, Mrs. Waters from California, for a four-minute opening statement.

Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Volk. For a year and a half, committee Democrats have demanded answers while you have refused to provide them. We sent you letters, requested briefings, and repeatedly called for this hearing. Instead of being proud of your work, you've been hiding while unlawfully trying and thankfully failing uh to dismantle the nation's top consumer watchdog. I've never delighted in someone's failure more than I have delighted in yours. Next week marks the fifteenth anniversary of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, opening its doors. It was created after the two thousand eight financial crisis, when millions of Americans were scammed out of their homes. Congress wanted working families to have someone on their side. And until you showed up, the Bureau was on their side. CFPB returned twenty-one billion dollars to millions of consumers, cheated by banks, mortgage services, payday lenders, credit reporting companies, debt collectors, and others. So because of CFPB's hard-working public servants, some of them are in the audience, The agency had bad actors, held them accountable, and got justice for Americans. But, not under your watch, mister vote. You have directed CFPB to drop enforcement actions even when they had bad actors offer to compensate the victims. You have blocked billions of dollars from being returned to harmed American consumers. You've even been terrible for the financial services industry, denying, throwing out basic guidance and safeguards industry had asked for. And your message to Wall Street is clear. You're defunding the police and you're breaking the law to do it. Consumer complaints about financial practices have exploded, with more companies filed under your watch, then cumulatively, files since twenty eleven. That is not a coincidence. It's because of you. What is astounding is that many of my Republican colleagues continue attacking the CFPB, even as they tell their constituents to ask the agency to resolve disputes with companies. Republicans secretly know the CFPB works because their constituents have benefited from it. But they're too scared to admit it. But Americans know the truth. Recent polling shows that eighty percent of midterm voters support the CFPB. If going after consumers were not bad enough at the White House, you've also gone after community, development, financial institutions. I'm talking about CDFIs and you know what I'm talking about, including hundreds of community banks and credit unions. And after the courts rejected your blatantly illegal attempt to cancel Grant's Congress authorized for non-profit organization, you are again violating the law with your new rule proposal. Committee Democrats refused to stand by. We've led multiple amicus briefs. defending the CFPB and Congress's contu- constitutional authority to create it, helping secure numerous court victories that stopped your efforts to dismantle the agency, starve it of its funding, and carry out unlawful mass violence.

General Mustapha is fired.

Those victories have kept the Bureau opening. So let me be clear. Today is about holding you accountable.

General Mustapha is fired.

for ignoring the law. And don't look surprised. You know what I'm talking about.

I now recognize the chair of our subcommittee on financial institutions,

I can go back and balance it out.

who's worked hard in this arena, Mister Barr from Kentucky, for a one-minute opening statement.

Director Vogt, uh, thank you for appearing before the committee today and thank you for the outstanding job you've done as Acting Director. Since its creation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has exceeded its statutory authority, relied on regulation by enforcement, created unnecessary uncertainty for consumers and the financial institutions that serve them. Luckily, under your leadership, the CFPB has taken important steps to reduce this regulatory overreach and get back to the core mission of protecting consumers. To ensure this change in direction is viable over the long term, Congress must establish durable guardrails that provide regulatory certainty. The CFPB reform package accompanying today's hearing reflects an effort to refocus the CFPB on its core statutory mission, By improving accountability, increasing transparency, providing greater regulatory certainty, and ensuring that enforcement and supervision are exercised in a fair and consistent manner, we look forward to discussing those proposals today and identifying additional opportunities to protect consumers while promoting a stable, competitive, and innovative financial marketplace. Thank you and I yield back.

Today we welcome the testimony of the Honorable Russ Volt, Acting Director of the CFPB. Acting Director Volt, we thank you for taking time to be with us. You'll be recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your written testimony. And without objection, your written testimony will be made part of the record. Records, I now recognize you for five minutes.

Chairman Hill, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today as I reach the end of my tenure at CFPB. I am pleased to present the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's semiannual report to Congress as well as to provide you an update on the activities of the Bureau during my tenure. After being appointed Acting Director of the Bureau, our team took a look under the hood and found an agency that was weaponized out of control and had gone far beyond its statutory mandate. Under previous administrations, this agency actually imposed huge costs on the American people, and stifled the innovation and resourcefulness that is necessary Consumers paid the price, literally in the form of higher prices, reduced product offerings, increased borrowing expenses, and the misuse of their taxpayer dollars. In fact, the Council of Economic Advisers found that the CFPB has cost consumers between two hundred and thirty-seven to three hundred and seventy billion dollars, since twenty eleven. Instead of going down this destructive path, we have steered the Bureau towards operating with humility, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. Regulation should be justified by the statute, not the whims of ideologues at the bureau. Supervision should be precisely targeted to avoid stifling economic growth and innovation and disproportionately increasing compliance costs. And enforcement should be based on clear violations of law, not in advancing a political agenda outside the accountability and oversight from elected officials and the American people. The Bureau's express purpose is to implement and enforce federal consumer financial law consistently so that all consumers have access to markets, and that such markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. While we have sought to downsize this agency to the maximum extent possible, and rein in its abuses, we have continued to operate it in accordance with that purpose. The Bureau's enforcement actions are now focused on addressing actual harm to consumers, and ensuring due process, President Trump ensured that the Bureau, along with other so-called independent regulatory agencies, are accountable to leaders elected by the American people and no longer operate with impunity. Recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that no such independent agencies exist in slaughter. The Bureau's regulatory actions are no longer developed in isolation, and the rest of the government works to improve its proposals through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I have also reoriented our internal processes. In supervision, the Bureau focuses its resources on pressing threats to consumers and in the areas that are clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. In the past, the supervision program pushed well past the limits of statutory authority under the guise of consumer protection. The Bureau also now avoids duplication of supervision by other regulators. Supervision is conducted with transparency and and our examiners announce it through the humility pledge that they read at the beginning of all examinations. Enforcement is also guided by a new set of principles so that the CFPB focuses on addressing actual harms to consumers ensuring due process, and seeking collaboration when appropriate. Under President Trump there has been a paradigm shift in the way that the CFPB regulates, supervises, and enforces the law as required by Dodd-Frank. And though we have improved a great deal about how to operate, the Bureau remains structurally defective. And I do not believe it should exist in its current form. I have been committed to running it in a responsible manner, in addressing real harms, instead of remaking financial markets in service of a political agenda. If confirmed, I know that President Trump's nominee, Brian Johnson, will do a great job in continuing to stir to steer CFPB in an appropriate manner. Ultimately, however, CFPB must be subject to Congress's most basic function, the appropriations process, to ensure accountability and legitimize an otherwise unserious agency. Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Director. We now turn to member questions, and given our limited time today, I'm gonna strictly enforce the five-minute rule. Hope everybody will help uh achieve that. I now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning. The CFPB's core mission is to protect consumers, but there's serious questions about whether some actions under the previous administrations advance the goal, that goal, or instead imposed costs ultimately harmed consumers. The Council of Economic Advisors estimated that since twenty eleven, the CFPB policies have cost consumers between two hundred and thirty-seven and three hundred and sixty-nine billion dollars through higher borrowing costs, reduced credit availability, and other compliance related expenses that have been passed on in the financial system. So my first question, Acting Director, is how did the prior regulatory approach negatively impact consumers in practice and why is it necessary to move quickly to unwind that approach and recalibrate directly to consumer benefit?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's an important uh note to remind uh this committee and the country of the impact of the last fifteen years of the CFPB before we came into office, uh with nearly three hundred and sixty billion dollars in added consumer costs because of the work of the CFPB and I hear often uh the twenty-one billion dollar figure of that is often cited by the defenders, and then you put it in comparison to the three hundred and seventy billion dollars, And m- m- much of that is on the regulatory front, but it's also by uh regulating through enforcement, uh and to go beyond a statutory or regulatory component, uh and to expand and to use the other tools that CFPB has, uh to effectively regulate by sending a very serious signal to those uh who are in a particular line of work. Um, but there has been a um a a concern uh that we have had with the ability to innovate, uh to have financial products that meet real needs that real people have, uh and to have innovation in those market places and unfortunately CFPB has not been a part of pr- providing such a landscape.

I appreciate that answer and one thing that that I've seen as a as a former community bank uh chief executive in the environment I can remember distinctly in two thousand and nine before Dodd-Frank was enacted, I participated in a round table in Little Rock uh with then uh assistant to the president, Elizabeth Warren, working for President Obama, outlining her vision for what a CFPB would do and her uh principal mission was actually consolidating the consumer rule book, making it clear, making it easier for consumers, and reducing regulatory burden uh on the financial services industry, both I would say bank and non-bank, was her pitch uh in that round table that I listened to but the, but what we've seen in practice over the fifteen years has been, it seems to me, the reverse, which is a duplicative nature. For example, members of Congress at the time of Dodd-Frank said they, I think they thought they were uh assigning CFPB to look at big banks at the time over ten billion dollars, but when you talk to bankers now and non-banks, they show a much more heavy compliance burden that's been pushed down and that is duplicative. Um, consistent with that, the CFPB has tried to move towards fewer exams and more targeting. Has that, your been your approach and you've been focused on those institutions over ten billion? For example, talk about that for a minute.

Well, we've had a very active superv supervision agenda, uh, and many people have n- have not noticed that, uh, who are, uh, supporters of the agency in general. Um, we have scaled certain aspects of it down that were largely junkets. So they had a a a culture of sending eight uh examiners for eight hours a day, for eight weeks, uh to visit on this on the job, on this on on the scene, uh each of these financial institutions. Uh we've taken the approach that we can do far more uh by having it remote, by uh ensuring that if we need to convene, we will convene, uh but we have we have made it so that it is a much more rational, we'll do about seventy exams this year, but again the seventy exams uh is not something that uh i- is there there's a far greater amount of work that's being done in behind the scenes in the supervision department uh so we have tried to rationalize it uh we've tried to bring um humility to it, we would dismiss cases that we thought uh had no basis in statute and then we would find that the the the career individuals were treating those those entities with uh disrespect with roughness with arbitrary deadlines and it's one of the reasons we put into place uh the pledge to make sure that our employees were operating with the

My time has expired.

respect

I thank you and I now ask the ranking member to address uh her questions, you have five minutes, ranking member thank you.

Director, vote. Let's turn to a problematic period of your tenure. Last February, at least three, at least three of Elon Musk's employees from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, DOESH, entered the CFPB headquarters and requested access to sensitive CFPB headquarters and requested access to sensitive CFPB information, including internal staff records, competitive industry data, and personally identifiable consumer information. The release of this data to inexperienced, untrained, and un-vetted individuals raises serious concerns about its impact on law enforcement. consumer privacy and the protection of confidential supervisory information. Furthermore, the trillionaire Elon Musk, who led Doge, may have gained access to this data and could use it to inform his own payment app and other companies. I asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate, but you stonewalled them too. However, they found that other agencies like Treasury, did not use safeguards to prevent Doge employees transmitting the sensitive data outside of the agency. A whistle-blower also noted that a Doge team inappropriately handled sensitive data at the National Labor Relations Board, and that Doge's records were destroyed before investigators could audit them. So direct a vote, because you never responded to a letter that I, Senator Warren and nearly two hundred members of Congress sent you last year. Tell me, simply, yes or no. Do you even know the extent the extent of the data held by the CFPB that Elon Musk and anyone else associated with Doge had access to? Do you have a record of all the data that was accessed? Have you done any investigation? into whether CFPB's data is secure. Yes or no?

Congressman, we had a Department of Government efficiency.

Yes or no?

It's something we're very proud of as an administration.

Yes or no? Reclaiming my time. No, you don't know. Direct a vote. Those had unfettered access to all information held by CFPB and it was given administrative privileges that allowed Doge employees to delete all records of what they did so let me ask you again did anyone from Doge unlawfully share this data with third parties have any records and account access about Doge's work at the CFPB been deleted yes or no

The Department of Government government efficiency part of the administration so when they came on board along with us at the cfpb

yes or no yes or no

we they were a part of getting a handle on the agency

reclaiming my time the gentleman refuses to answer just last may the cfpb under your leadership deleted its institutional records from the agency's website this include press releases consumer advisories supervisory highlights reports and enforcement action summaries from prior administrations and translations into other languages also were disabled. Are you aware that a district court ordered you and CFPB to maintain and not delete, destroy, remove, or impair any agency data? Yes or no?

You're totally, your your question is totally inaccurate.

Yes or no?

Your your question is inaccurate.

Yes or no. Reclaim in my time. It did, and your last action to hide the truth is in clear violation of the court injunction. Director Vogt, you should preserve all of your emails, text messages and other forms of communication r- respect to your CFPB work while you may also wish to be done. If a new director is confirmed to the CFPB, let me be clear, you're not done wi- we're not done with you. And so, despite your boss calling it a hoax, affordability is a big problem for consumers. Groceries and gas cost much more today than when Trump came into office. In fact, one in ten families have to skip a meal just to get by. Consumers are upset.

Time has expired. The chair recognizes the Vice Chairman for the full committee, Mister Heisgen of Michigan, for five minutes.

Thank you, Director Vogt, I'm gonna move quickly. Uh,

When you have a new administration, I thank you Congressman,

Mm-hmm.

when you have a new administration, they put the previous documents, press releases into an archive version of the website. That is exactly what we have done. It can be found on the website. It is all there. If people wanna go back and and and look at what we think are flawed guidance documents from the CHOPRIT directorship, it's all there under archive. But it is not gonna be represented as our administration's view with regard to what the policies and rules and regulations are of this administration.

OK, I'm I'm gonna skip my set up and just get right to my question, how can the ensure it meets the statutory objective of protecting consumers from genuine misconduct while also ensuring that its supervisory and enforcement activities do not unnecessarily discourage responsible lending to the small businesses that drive local economies you talked about the three hundred and sixty billion dollars in regulatory costs to consumers uh we know that uh that uh an unclear uh direction simply just causes uh people to say no on their lending.

Well, I think we took a long time to work on our supervisory and enforcement guidelines. We're very proud of them. It focuses on uh actual victims, identifiable harm that has material and measurable damages.

Yeah, but d- wouldn't the fishing expeditions of Rohit Chopra do the same thing?

Yes, and so our uh my my my view would be to turn those into law. And so everything that we've done, turn it into statutory uh requirements that build on the work that we've done.

All right. Uh, an effective regulatory system should motivate entities to detect and fix issues, as you've been talking about. Um, and while working with regulators perv- to prevent consumer harm, institutions are more likely to invest in compliance and even frankly self-report violations uh if cooperation is rewarded and not penalized. You talked a little bit about that. Um, yeah, some stakeholders have argued that CFPB's approach lacks incentives for self-reporting. uh which may actually reduce transparency and slow corrective actions, uh and I think frankly major reforms are needed. For that reason I've introduced the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, uh Commission Act, uh to reform the CFPB structure from a single director, uh to a bipartisan commission of five members, making it more accountable, consistent, transparent, and trustworthy. And frankly, this has been discussed for many, many years. Uh it was a good idea then, it's a good idea now, especially if one is concerned with the lack oversight uh that ha- we just heard from uh from the ranking member. So in the meantime, how is the CFPB working to encourage a supervisory culture that rewards self-identification self-correction and good faith cooperation?

Well, one of the things that we do is we reach out early and often if we see something that's either uh predominant in the customer uh complaint portal or if we are seeing it in the news we reached out to Bilt when we felt that they were not making payments uh on behalf of the as a new credit card uh we we insured that they were going to then uh work to fix the problem they were working to fix the problem when there's examples like that.

Are are are there some additional statutory reforms that you'd like to see that could further incentivize that?

Well again I think to to the farthest extent possible if you can write into the the the law the notion that uh we're after self-reporting we're after remediation and reconciliation that that is better than waiting on enforcement for many, many years that that may not uh uh occur. Uh, that is a much better uh way of operating than to just assume that um it's as adversarial as it has been.

Um, we've got a minute here. Given the twenty twenty four's uh uh Supreme Court ruling on Loper Bright, uh, how is the CFPB approaching the exercise of its statutory authority? I mean, it it that decision was very important and reminder that major policy decisions should and frankly must come from Congress, not just through uh not just through expansive uh agency interpretations.

Well, it's obviously a very critical to an our entire regulatory agenda as administration. Uh, we don't wanna go beyond the authority that you've given us. Uh, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's so important that you all are starting the the hearing and the legislative process on reforms um so that you can further uh spell out What should be a larger participant, for example. Those are the types of things that uh I think CFPB has way too much authority with regard to our ability to look at the law.

Clarity. I think there needs to be clarity, transparency, and understanding, and predictability. That's what you need to be doing. Now yield back.

Gentlemen, yields back. Chair recognizes the ranking member of our House Small Business Committee, Miss Velasquez of New York, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, director Vaux, last month the CFPB issued a statement suggesting creditors consider immigration status as a negative factor in an individual's ability to repay. It has been reported that the banking industry has expressed concerns about the burden of vetting customers for immigration status. Did the CFPB consult with creditors before issuing this statement, yes or no?

Uh, no. We have worked with them throughout

ok your answer is no

uh we are looking at the law as we see it and we have the

your your answer is no by the way you know director chopra when he issued the ten seventy one uh section ten seventy one rule he held more than one hundred average meetings with financial institutions trade association community groups and so on and at the end the members of the other side in this committee continue to criticize uh the implication and the impact that it will have uh on bankers, on creditors, but not this time. Um the loss So do you think yes uh how did CFPB consult with creditors?

Well it's interesting, the ten seventy-one

No, no, I I don't wanna hear about ten, seventy-one.

Cool.

We discussed it here too many time.

Eighty, eight, eighty data fields compared to

Just answer my question, how many meetings did you hold with creditors?

We reached out to the financial s uh s services company.

Mm.

How many times?

I don't have that at my fingers, but it's suffice to say we do our work,

Yes, of course.

we we take input,

I'm

but we're gonna we're gonna regulate based on what the law is,

What is

and that's what we're doing with the ability to pay with regard to illegal immigrants.

Okay, what is the estimated cost of implementing this rule for the creditors.

There there is n- there's not a rule out there that has gone through a cost

I know, I know I'm gonna get to to that in a moment.

benefit analysis because it's already the law it's already the law, it's already the standard, and we were simply uh overriding the the policy proc- uh the policy guidance from the previous director,

Reclaim it, reclaiming my time.

that conflicted with the statute.

The loss of an employment situation is significantly more likely to be a risk to a credit application than the risk of being an unauthorized immigrant. Do you think creditors should include whether an ICE agent that has shot an unarmed civilian on the street and therefore is likely to be charged with murder, and the loss of employment as a factor in determining whether they have the ability to repay

We believe that illegal immigration is a serious problem in this country. I understand it's not a bipartisan view.

I'm asking you if an agent,

And there are laws on the books.

ICE agent, shot an unarmed civilian

Uh

if that should be counted as a determining factor of being d- having the ability to repay

Yes,

Mr. Chairman, I am making

we have s- we have said that as a as a matter of our guidance, that it is an important factor in the ability to repay if you are no longer

Mi- mi-

Yeah.

in this country because of the legal steps that you took to get into this country.

Mis- Reclaiming my time, Mister Chairman, I am making an outrageous statement to make the point that the CSPB's statement on consideration on im- of immigration status as a negative factor in an individual's ability to repay is equally outrageous and insulting. Director Bout vote, the statement you put out is not guidance, nor is the rule. And I just heard the chairman, when he was making his opening remark, saying that the CFPB is moving away from informal guidance, unless you want to make a point. may be instructed by Stephen Miller. So the statement at the end even clarified that this statement does not have the force or effect of law. It has no legally binding effect. I found it nothing more than another racist trope coming from this administration that seeks to threaten creditors and intimidate lenders and borrowers are alike. You know what is the point? Cruelty. I yield back.

General Wilman's time has expired. The chair recognizes the chair of our Task Force on Monetary Policy, Mister Lucas of Oklahoma. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for being here, Director. I know many in this committee are heartened by your leadership at the Bureau and the progress that we've made, particularly after your precedent focused your predecessor pro focused on the Bureau of Regulation by enforcement and advisory opinions, rather than notice and comment with robust public feedback. Can you explain what the Bureau is doing to permanently rescind some of the harmful rules of the past administration?

Well, there's not a lot that we can do on a permanent basis without your help. And so I I think that's a really important uh aspect of the humility that we're trying to bring to the conversation is W we need Congress, not unlike what you did with the size of the agency, to come along and restrict our authorities. Uh, but we have changed the culture. Uh, we are dramatically lower. We're about half of what we were uh when we came into into office. And so we are we are taking culture seriously so that uh there is nothing that uh has to swing back as a see-saw by virtue of it not being done right the first time.

Continue with that line of thought. uh sometimes I hear often from the financial services industry is the need for durable and consistent regulations to avoid dramatic policy shifts from year to year can you describe how the committee could partner with you to support those efforts and ensure progress uh the progress that your leadership has made is truly lasting see my theme here I wanna fix the problem

Well I think yeah I mean we've put forward two big deregulatory initiatives that we hopefully are are are the type of things that are so credible and we believe they are that they last um there is obviously jump balls within a statutory framework and where there are those jump balls of discretion that is where the most danger is obviously uh we would have concerns with the definition of abusiveness under UDAP that would be an example where i think that you would wanna codify a better definition of it i think you'd wanna codify what is larger larger participant i think you'd wanna codify what consumer risk that is so significant that the CFPB should ext should extend its authority and so I would remove those discretionary jump balls as mar- much as possible.

Director, on a similar topic, past abuses have made clear the need for increased congressional accountability and oversight over the Bureau's actions. What structural forms would be helpful to ensure that in the future the Bureau stays within its statutory mandate and is not moving beyond congressional intent?

I think the biggest thing that you can do is put uh the agency uh under the appropriations process. Uh the the degree to which it doesn't have to come to Congress and have its budget approved and dispensed to is a massive, massive problem, and I think it's the number one thing that I I would I would point the committee to.

The bill we've noticed today would include an adjustment to the supervision, threshold to twenty-one, billion dollars to account for economic growth. What would that adjustment mean for the Bureau's ability to focus its supervisory function on larger institutions?

I think it would help for sure. Uh, I think it would align with the risk uh basis of which we endeavor our super supervision and enforcement activities. And so I think it's the kind of common sense reform uh that you know would would hopefully ride on a on a reform bill.

Thank you, Director, for being here and thank you, uh, Chairman, for having us here. Can I yield back?

Chairman from Oklahoma yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member of our subcommittee on capital markets, Mister Sherman from California for five minutes.

It's incredibly refreshing to have someone from the Trump administration come here and talk about the role of Congress in congressional oversight. Uh, in so many other areas, this administration just flouts the law Uh, the greatest of course being the War Powers Act. So in this one narrow area, we've got an administration uh that believes Congress should exist. Uh, and that is indeed refreshing. Uh, I wanna focus on uh an issue I think uh ha is of concern to both sides of the aisle, and that is these uh quote credit report repair agencies. Uh, they have a tendency to overwhelm your agency with bot created complaints by the literally millions. In twenty twenty four, your agency announced uh, of course, uh, uh, under prior administration that it had distributed one point eight billion to uh, uh, dollars to four point three million consumers hurt by credit repair scams. What actions have you taken in your tenure uh, to track down uh, on uh, these companies and and also to prevent them from overwhelming your website?

Well, I I I thank you for the question. Uh, we have tried to build on some of the reforms uh that were previously put into place. For instance, creating an account with a password, uh, having a verified email. We've taken the next step of verifying a mobile phone number. We've taken the next step of making sure that you can't have the same uh rec phone number for multiple different individuals. Uh, and we've tried to to to remind people that they have to go to the credit reporting agency first. They have thirty days. get an extension for another fifteen days, but that's the basis of the process. Um, and hopefully that will be a major demand signal to the industry.

Okay. I'd Thank you. I need to to move on. Uh, Mister Voden, wearing your other hats, and you've worn many in this administration, you've presided over um the cuts to our foreign aid program that will result in three million deaths during this administration mostly from health and uh, not providing malaria a a and AIDS treatments, uh, and tuberculosis treatments, also food aid. Uh, we see a defunding of the Council of Inspectors, uh, General on integrity and efficiency. And we've seen illegal cuts, uh, where you just freeze the money for Alzheimer's, uh, research, women's health, cancer research, uh, et cetera. Now, in your opening statement, You tell us that uh, think you come up with a figure as high as three hundred and seventy billion dollars that the CFPB has imposed in uh costs to consumers. That's really just the banks saying, oh my God, we don't like the CFPB, and we'll attribute all of our price increases to their existence. Uh, the uh, Council of Economic Advisors does nothing to prove that these are real dollars, not imaginary dollars. In contrast, uh, as you know, uh, the prior the CFPB prior to you had returned twenty-one billion dollars to consumers, uh, and five uh, w- correction, twenty-one billion, yeah, it backed to consumers in monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debt, um, and uh, what's more important, as long as Your testimony is based on estimates. It must be tens or hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that the CFPB has saved consumers by deterring fraud, by deterring abuse of practices. Um, you know, there were some who wanted to defund the police. They were unsuccessful, but they would point to Well, how much did the police actually recover for the, from the victims of crime? How many wallets were returned? That isn't the issue. If you're gonna defund the police, you look at what crimes are prevented and deterred. Now, the only person successful in defunding the police, sir, is you. You've defunded the police that protect us from crime in the suites. uh, while railing against crime in the streets. And the fact is Americans need to be protected, uh, from both. Um, you have slashed your agency without any input from Congress. Congress envisioned, cuz we were here, we wrote this bill, uh, a robust agency. You've cut it by a third. You're in the process of trying to cut it by more than a third. You've cut enforcement by eighty percent.

Gentlemen, his time has expired and I invite the director to respond to that question in writing. Thank you. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mister Sessions, for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Uh, director, welcome. Uh, I in fact find your leadership uh refreshing. I find your leadership balanced. I find your leadership addressing the uh over-regulation, overpowering by government. Uh, you've brought up several examples of uh things that that happen when when uh oversight when you come into banks or you come into areas uh about their oversight. Uh I want to talk with you about some of the civil money penalties that have really taken place, it happened more before you got there, talk to me about these civil penalties and the use of those civil penalties. I've been looking on the web site about how the the CFPB does have discretion in these areas and what what is this? W- is it a weapon? Is it there to stop bad behavior? Is it there to uh create something new? And correspondingly, once those penalties were uh made, money, civil penalties, was action taken that crai- that changed uh results or procedures.

One of the tools, Congressman, that CFPB has is administrative consent orders, which is essentially a way that CFPB can sue and settle uh over and over with entities and can bring in additional contributions into the civil ten- civil penalty fund, which has a use. Uh, we we had at least one or two examples where uh a company that had done wrongdoing that we thought was valid did not have any money left and we put money out from the civil penalty fund, so we could provide redress to consumers. But the extent to which the combination of the fund and the soon settled uh, authorities that CFPB has is one of those things that I would take a look at if I was in Congress.

So in other words, you believe that there may be a better balance if we look at that and and and and see where we actually direct the uh, CFPB on on that.

I do.

OK. Well, I think it's important for us to and you to look at over-regulation. Uh, the our friends on the other side didn't wanna talk about ten seventy-one. Ten seventy-one is something that we became aware of early on. The uh uh uh banking industry became aware of it. It took what was originally about fourteen or fifteen pages of regulation and moved it to a thousand pages. It required banks or any lenders where they were dealing with minorities, uh, to, uh, reassess and and to ask all sorts of questions. I found that what it did is it, by and large, meant that banks did not want to offer loans anymore because of the extensive and rigorous uh process that it required. Rather than some review stating the facts about where they believed, uh there may be frailties in the marketplace. I note that you have now changed those rules and regulations. Have you had a chance to do any evaluation where you did a look back compared to what might be the current uh results that are happening uh that making it better for banks financial institutions to lend to minority or other types of businesses or people?

Thank you Congressman. When the when the rule went through OIRA review which is obviously a new Uh, it had a cost-benefit analysis. Um, the the benefits, two billion dollars and lower regulatory costs were obviously substantial. Um, it's too soon to be able to see the on the ground impact, but I heard the same thing that you did with regard to the the potential that we'd have fewer lending as a result of it. And just to to put a fine point on the statutory basis for it, the statute required thirteen data fields. The Chopra directorship put forward a rule that had in the neighborhood of eighty plus direct uh field data fields. Uh, we came up with a rule that did sixteen, and we believe, for good reasons, because those extra three were tied into the underlying thirteen.

Right, and as a matter of fact, it would have put the person who was uh wa- la asking the loan, put them in jeopardy also of of how they complied.

Yeah. Another another fact is twenty nine million uh paper hours of paperwork uh as a result of the last fifteen years of CFPB.

Yes, sir.

The the ten seventy-one rule that Chopra had done, it would have added much more paperwork, many more employees that these entities would have to do to do that paperwork.

Well, it came directly from the Texas Bankers Association, who talked with all the members up here, and they felt like it was not wise. You have made it uh more reasonable. Mister Chairman, I yield back my time.

Gentlemen, he yields back. I want to recognize the ranking member of our

Thank you. Mister Voigt, you'd never been a member of Congress, have you?

I have not.

And you were not a member of Congress at the time that Congress created the CFPB, were you?

I was not.

And Congress uh then made and gave CFPB a statutory responsibilities to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial practices. So I don't know if you know that, but I was here when it was created. That's the congressional mandate. Now, you took an office, uh oath I guess, as acting cuz you you not you had not been or ever been confirmed to be the director. Is that correct?

I have not, and I'm looking forward to being up with my time on the first August.

Okay. But you have not, and I'm looking for- I'm looking forward to that too. Um uh but you took an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws that Congress enacted. Is that not correct?

And we've done that.

Not that you've enacted, but that Congress have enacted. And in your testimony, you've said, we've sought to downscale this agency to the maximum extent possible, and I quote. Then you said you don't believe that the CFPB should exist in its current form. which is the form of which Congress created, not you, or the Dodd-Frank Act, which is still the law. You may not like it, but it is what Congress set forth. Congress has never relieved the Bureau of its statutory responsibilities. So, mister vote, let me, the first thing is your job isn't to run on a temporary basis, as you have, the CFPB as you wish, it is as the Congress has set out statutorily for it to be done. Your job is to be faithful to administer the CFPB that Congress created. But that's not what you've done, sir. You've accused the CFPB of, and I quote, advancing a radical political agenda. But, Mister Vogt, are you the creator of Project twenty twenty six? And you're trying to put that in place here, which is a radical political agenda? Aren't you doing the exact same things? That's what you're doing? You are putting forward Project twenty twenty six, a radical political agenda and trying to utilize it in the CFPB, which is not authorized by the United States Congress? Sir, under your leadership, the CFPB has dropped enforcement actions, cut its workforce, and made major operational changes? Mister Vogt, your lawyers I mean, and you've done this being a non-confirmed person. And your lawyers have even argued in court that major decisions about the Bureau's workforce and operations should wait shouldn't be on you temporarily, but your lawyers said should wait for a Senate confirmed director because they carry greater legitimacy. I mean, your lawyers actually arguing that you don't have that legitimacy. That's their case. That's what they said in court. It says it's not legitimate when they are made by someone conf- not confirmed by the Senate. So, your conduct, sir, is directly inconsistent with the position of your own lawyers of what they took in court. So you described the CFPB as an unserious agency in your testimony. Do you believe that what you and Elon Musk did with Doge at the CFPB reflected seriousness? So that was unserious and not what the American people would expect from their government. Congress never authorized Doge to carry out the CFPB's mission. Congress never gave Doge authority over consumer financial protection. Yet under your watch, sir, doge gain access to some of the CFPB's most sensitive consumer and supervisory information that I call that unserious and that reckless, sir. Your testimony mentioned several things. I'm out of time. But, sir, I'm glad you're leaving. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the chair of the subcommittee on financial institutions, Mister Barr of Kentucky.

for five minutes. Director Vo, let me offer an alternative perspective from uh my friend, the gentleman from New York. Um, I wasn't a member when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act. Candidly, uh everyone knows I would have voted against the Dodd-Frank Act had I been here at the time but I am a member of Congress today and the fact of the matter is um, you're not disregarding the statute. The statute gave you, as the acting director and any director, enormous, enormous power. unaccountable from Congress. That was the precise design of the Dodd-Frank Law in creating this bureau. And so to the extent my friend from New York has a problem with you exercising the enormous discretion that Congress conferred upon you, it's his fault. It's the fault of the authors of the Dodd-Frank Law. That is precisely why we have attached to this hearing a reform package that should be bipartisan. If anyone wants to provide accountability to the Bureau, if anyone wants to rein in your discretion that you have exercised lawfully, it should be the Congress on a bipartisan basis. So whether it's Richard Cordray or Cathy Koeniger or Chopra or you, sir, we have given to you, my predecessors have given to you in the Dodd-Frank law, all the powers that you are now exercising. So if my friends on the other side of the aisle have anyone to blame for the actions that you have taken, they need to look in the mirror because they have given you the power that you have exercised here today. That is precisely,

Has the gentleman been confirmed by a Senate

that is precisely why we have offered this reform package today. Director Vogt, over the years many stakeholders have expressed concern that the CFPB's civil investigative demand authority has been exercised with limited transparency, and few meaningful procedural safeguards. making it difficult for recipients to understand the basis for an investigation or to challenge overly broad requests before incurring significant costs. Those concerns undermine confidence in what should be a fair and objective investigative process. It's why I introduced H R sixteen fifty-three, which would strengthen the procedural protection surrounding the CFPB's use of civil investigative demands, while preserving the Bureau's ability to investigate legitimate misconduct. Could you discuss how the CID process was abused under your predecessor and how greater transparency and due process in the Bureau's CID process can strengthen both public confidence in the agency and the effectiveness of enforcement efforts.

Thank you, Congressman. I mean, when you have a a a financial regulatory uh entity that views themself as a prosecutor and advocate, and they have the tools of the civil investigative demands to be able to open up and get any information they want and go on fact-finding missions which is what the supervision um uh aspects of the job often look like, um you have great opportunities for uh uh mischief. And I think your bill is the kind of thing that needs to be uh done to bind the agency. And and rarely do you have an agency head that comes to you and says, please bind our agency in as many ways as you possibly can because of the the degree to which uh it has it has acted abnormally.

Well, under your predecessor the CID process uh was a fishing expedition. that there was no requirement that they had to actually identify suspected illegal conduct. They just went in and they harassed law-abiding American companies and bankrupted them with this Gestapo tactics. That's why we need my bill on this end to reform CID and put some modicum of due process into the system. Um, I I invite my my friend from New York to consider my legislation that would subject the bureau to the congressional appropriations process, to the extent he thinks you're doing a bad job. Again, it's the authors of the Dodd-Frank's Law fault. Because they p- they put you beyond the congressional appropriations process. Could you discuss how bringing the CFPB into the annual appropriations process would strengthen the Bureau's stewardship of taxpayer resources, improve accountability to Congress, and frankly, give my friend, the gentleman from New York, more authority over you?

It's the most important reform that you can do full stop. Uh, the extent to which an agency has to come to Congress, and justify the activities that it does in conjunction with the resources that it is requesting from the appropriations process i do not believe i do not understand why congress would ever provide funding to an agency outside of that process um and and so it has led to i think a cavalier attitude and a and a swagger on behalf on behalf of the cfpb that is ultimately what we've been trying to wind down

well well i understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are disappointed in your leadership I was disappointed with the pred- my, your predecessor's leadership. If we care about making this agency accountable and less partisan, let's join together in a bipartisan manner and reclaim the power of the purse over this agency.

Gentleman's time has expired.

I yield back.

Chair recognizes the ranking member of our subcommittee of on digital assets, Mister Lynch of Massachusetts, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Directive vote in twenty twenty three, the Department of Justice and Treasury uh reached a four billion dollar settlement with Binance after the company willfully violated US anti-money laundering and sanctions laws. Uh, Binance had failed to safeguard its platform against terrorist organizations, ransomware attackers, and sanctioned actors in in Iran, uh, North Korea and Syria. In uh in March twenty twenty five, Binance wrote the code behind World Liberty Financial, USD one stable coin. That's the Crypto comp cryptocurrency company predominantly owned by President Trump and his family his sons. Uh, now Binance also promoted the product to two hundred and seventy-five million customers, and uh recent financial disclosures by the president uh indicate that he personally made two hundred and sixty-three million dollars on on that deal. Uh, two months later, the UAE, United Arab Emirates, a state-owned state-owned investment firm, MGX, issued USD one, this is that sta- the prompt stable coin, to make a two billion dollar investment in Binance. Uh, giving President Trump a direct financial stake in the very exchange, Binance, that he had responsibility for monitoring for m- for the previous money laundering. In November, twenty twenty five, President Trump pardoned the CEO, Changpeng Zhao who was the CEO of of Binance. Again, with the recent disclosures that we've received, and and also supported by blockchain analytics data, shows that over one million investors, these are consumers, these are the folks that you're supposed to be protecting, lost over three point eight billion dollars on the Trump meme coin, which has lost ninety percent of its value. while Trump has reaped over one point four billion dollars in personal gain. All of that has raised massive legal issues for for those consumers who you're supposed to be protecting, a- and those are matters well within your jurisdiction. Uh, in addition, there are issues of abuse of power, improper emoluments under the Constitution, self-dealing, conflict of interest, So, given your responsibility for protecting consumer, is any of that worthy of an investigation by your agency?

This administration has the highest ethical standards.

Oh.

I would refer you to the statements made by the Trump organization that all investments are made by third-party financial institutions with automated technology.

Is I I'm asking you if if if any of that, any of that, you know, the the president getting one point four billion dollars, the consumers that you're supposed to be protecting lose three point eight billion dollars, ninety percent of the value is gone, the president obviously promoted this meme coin as he was coming into office, none of that, none of that warrants an investigation, is that what you're telling this committee this morning?

No, there is nothing that we have done that is a conflict of interest. This administration has the highest need at the charge of that.

Woah woah woah woah woah woah. You you you're talking like we is you and the president. You you're supposed to be the cop on the beat at CFPB. You're supposed to be pert it's it should be we the consumers feel. Are we the consu we the consumers see this? Not you and the president. He you know, he he's he's has scammed these the three point eight billion dollars that that that these consumers lost, that that's what you should be policing. That's where you should be investigating. You shouldn't be defending the president's deal. You got a responsibility to investigate. That's that's what we we all did uh when we created the CFPB. So so you're saying there's nothing here, none of that, the the gain of the president, the pardoning of of Chang Peng-jiao. The fact that that the UAE has used the Trump stable coin to to invest in Binance, giving the president, you know, billions of dollars in in personal financial gain. You don't think there's anything And and and the harm to the consumers, that's the key here. Consumers lost three point eight billion dollars, and you, sir, are responsible for protecting them. And you don't think there's any ne- any need for an investigation. Is that what you're telling me?

I'm not gonna rely on the extent to which n- fake news papers portray the events that you're describing.

That's what investigations are for.

Gentlemen, this time has expired. Uh, just a reminder to both sides of the aisle. Uh, all members of committee are reminded to observe the principles of decorum, and courtesy, and debate, the House of Representatives and its committees. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair,

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for being here today, I'm a I happen to be a car leader back home and our industry got sucked into this by cord rate when we weren't when we weren't even supposed to be in it so your testimony personal of to our industry uh consumers deserve a clear

Mm.

information about the financial products they use and

Mm.

At the same time, the businesses that uh serve uh them deserve a clear rule so that they can comply with the law. As a small business owner myself, I understand how important regulatory certainty is. When the agencies rely on enforcement action instead of clear publicly available guidance becomes much uh harder for responsible businesses to understand their legal obligations under entering the marketplace. So, direct to vote, uh, how is the CFPB working to promote greater clarity and transparency? regarding federal consumer financial laws, particularly its UDAP authority and so that responsible businesses understand that compliance obligations and consumers continue to receive meaningful uh protections.

Thank you, Congressman. We've been very clear in putting out our guidance uh for supervision and enforcement on how we wanna prioritize our tools uh we wanna find actual uh victims We wanna provide identifiable consumer r- harm, which we view as material and measurable. Um, and we wanna make sure that those are where we put all of our resources as opposed to, uh, some process that didn't yet, uh, adhere to, in which the company came forward and self-corrected it. Uh, that is where we believe we can put as much, uh, lead on the target on behalf of consumers, on behalf of the consumer protection laws that we have on this on the books in this country.

Uh, thank you for that. And as Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I hear every day from entrepreneurs who rely on loans to hire employees, purchase equipment, and grow their businesses, that many of these small businesses raised concerns about, uh, the previous administration's implementation of section ten seventy-one. We've talked about that small business lending rule, uh, would impose significant compliance costs and ultimately make it difficult for lenders to simply extend credit. So recognizing these concerns, the Trump administration, CFPB, revised the section ten seventy-one rule binary in its its scope, modifying certain data collection requirements, and extending complement uh compliance deadlines to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on lenders and small businesses. So, Director, can you explain how these uh revisions help right-size compliance requirements, improve access to credit for America's small business, and still ensure the CFPB fulfills its statutory responsibilities?

Sure, Congressman. I mean, I think if you load up the regulatory burdens on lending and require for every small business loan eighty data fields to be filled in, none of which is relevant uh for the purposes of providing those kinds of loans, you're you've increased the cost of doing business and you're gonna end up having fewer small business loans which I don't think ev- anyone in this this room wants. So that is the reason why we prioritize that rule um with you all, and we're very proud of our final product.

Should be. Uh, the role of the CFPB is to enforce federal law, not to delay the work of financial institutions with burdensome mandates. Currently, we're fixing a disjointed framework where multiple agencies have overlapping jurisdiction overseeing the same institutions. This often creates excessive regulatory demands and conflicting obligations for financial institutions. So, Director, in closing, can you please tell me what the CFPB is doing to improve inter-agency coordination, minimize redundant oversight, that uh burdens our financial institutions.

Sure, we've tried to uh not get in the way of the prudential regulators. Uh, we've tried to be very um uh insistent that we stick to our portfolio and to acknowledge that uh the regulated entities have many different regulators. Um, and we've tried to take that approach and provide clarity on that on that front.

I would just like to close by saying the cost of regulation is destroying can destroy Main Street America. small businesses, uh and uh the less we can uh regulate some of these businesses, uh the better, better off we are. So thank you for being here today. Appreciate it.

Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes our ranking member of our subcommittee on financial institutions, Doctor Foster of Illinois, you're recognized for five minutes.

Yeah, uh well thank you, I wear several hats around here, among them uh one an actual manufacturer in this thing, who started a company that manufactures big part of the theater lighting equipment and I could talk for a long while about how destructive This administration has been towards US manufacturing. But I'm also a PHD physicist. Okay, in your spare time between destroying federal regulat regulators, you're all also pretty far along in destroying the federal science uh enterprise. Uh, are you familiar with Omar Yagi?

Am I familiar with what car?

Omar Yagi. He's a Palestinian refugee. He grew up in Jordan, came to the United States, won a Nobel Prize, and he's brilliant, charismatic guy. And he announced a few days ago that he is leaving the United States. And you know where he's going? China, where he will be leading the material science labs at one of their top universities. So I, my question is this, could you please tell your boss that the his current score on Nobel prizes is negative one? Could you tell him that?

No, I'm not gonna tell him that, cuz I think it's an inappropriate comment from you.

I I think it's a factual comment. Um, okay, now I'm uh was one of the few members who was still on the committee who was around during the global financial crisis, which was the result in large extent of abusive lending practices that caused dramatic failures in financial markets. Lenders made loans that were impossible to repay, they knew it, with hidden fees, exploding adjustable interest rates, little or no evaluation of a borrower's ability to repay. These practices contributed to widespread defaults in debt, that resulted in a seven hundred billion dollar tax payer-funded bailout of the US economy, which is where you're heading us back down, the track the path you're heading us back down. So this crisis caused Congress to create, among other things, the CFPB to address exactly the type of predatory lending practices that led to this crisis. The Congress giving it authority over non-bank mortgage l mortgage lenders, credit cards, student loans, and other consumer l lending products. Okay, maybe you think it's all fine now. But do you know how much debt the US households have to how much h debt they had um, prior to the peak of the two thousand eight financial crisis. Total.

Not on the top of my head, no.

No, it was twelve point six eight trillion dollars in two thousand eight. Do you know how much debt the US households hold today?

How many?

Eighteen point eight trillion dollars. There's more debt piled up, uh, on stress from the American households than there was before the crisis. And we're unfortunately just as naked against the same sort of abuse that we had. as we had back then. We're facing, American families are facing significant economic challenges, all the while this administration and you specifically are attempting to cut ninety-five percent of the staff of the one agency empowered by Congress to protect them from abusive loans and and predatory lenders. This is not to mention that the mess that you and the president have gotten us into with tariffs and the conflict in Iran, you know, both of which are increasing cost and the economic stress on Americans, and your administration has presented no intelligible strategy to end either one of these. And so one of the underappreciated aspects of the pre-two thousand eight economy was the lack of supervision over non-bank financial institutions. Before the crisis, many mortgages were issued by non-bank lenders, and that percentage increased from l- roughly forty percent in two thousand eight to around sixty-five percent today. Uh, pre-tel two thousand eight, no agency had authority to oversee non-bank mortgage lenders. This is the mortgage market that led to the financial crisis. Congress and then gave the CFPB authority to oversee non-bank mortgage lenders, an authority that was not previously held by any financial agency. Uh, so do you know how many examinations the CFPB carried out on entities under its supervision since you've taken over as director?

We have continued our supervision enforcement activities,

Do you know the number?

and I would just say with regard to the non-banks, many of the the legal theories that were used to uh supervise and enforce on non-banks were extrapolations that were quite novel from anything that you had ever passed. So our issue is not whether we're willing to regulate non-banks, the issue is the extent to which the legal theories and the statutes do not allow and that need to go through Congress, that's the extent to which uh we need to have that debate here in in the people's house.

We did have that debate, we passed, I voted for it and we passed. the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill that gave you authority to deal with non-bank lenders alright and and when you got the administration you're heading us down a path that that is I'm afraid just gonna send us right back. Now it no you you made it abundantly clear you don't much care about uh ordinary Americans getting ripped off but maybe you care about rich people. You remember Murty Bernie Madoff? Okay, he scammed you know many many very wealthy people Republican donors that your boss cares about. OK? And it and when we had hearing after hearing on how did that happen, it was because of underfunded regulators.

Gentlemen, this time it's expired.

Go back.

Chair now recognizes the chair of our subcommittee on national security, Mister Davidson of Ohio, for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. And Chairman Vogt, thank you for your multiple hats, but uh thank you for your work here at CF CFPB in answering our questions today. And I have a new plan for some of my time, I would wanna mention, former manufacturing company owner, uh, growing businesses in Ohio, we're very thankful for President Trump's leadership, and that extends broadly across the administration. Because for the first time, somebody intends to do something about China's failure to comply with their commitment to be a market economy. They have weaponized uh the rules of trade against the United States, and President Trump has made it a priority to grow jobs here in America. Uh, we've done that with the Work and Family Tax Cuts Act. We've insured incentive incentivized investments in America. We've done that with tariff and trade policy. And we've seen overwhelming commitments by countries and companies around the world to make bigger foreign direct investments in the United States of America than ever before. So far from, uh, the narrow experience of my colleague from Illinois, uh, the broad market says that cash is flowing into the United States. And the reality is one of the Nobel Prize laureates that he has, uh, despite their narrative that America is some insufferable, you know, terrible place, uh, everyone in the world wants to be here. Uh, we let a million people in legally every year, and uh, but we've, we've cracked down on illegal immigration. They said we need to pass laws to do that. We had laws, we didn't apply them. Now bring that over into the financial sector, and foreign investment, we've got uh Nobel Prize laureates who would rather help China than the United States of America. That might be a sign we didn't get the immigration thing right. If you wanna be part of helping China advance in a competition against the United States, good riddance, enjoy your time in China, please don't come back. I hope Secretary Rubio makes sure you can. So um those are the kinds of things that, you know, America's policies advance America's interests that are tr- across the board. And when uh I think about, you know, consistent consistency there, I think about woke and weaponized government and you certainly walked into an agency where that was off the charts. You were pushing initiatives through, or you weren't, uh your predecessor was pushing initiatives and predecessors uh going back to uh Richard Cordray, uh were pushing initiatives that were at odds with not just law, but the interest of the United States. So could you highlight maybe some of the highlights of your experience there of how the uh agency was being abused from its proper purpose?

Well let me give you the example of Townstone, which is a small mortgage lending company in Chicago, that was only thirty-one mortgages short out of about eight hundred and seventy-nine of of violating some arbitrary threshold under disparate impact uh standard, which we have now gotten away from and and gotten rid of. And that began over a series of time. They used software to to mine all of the public comments of this president of this of of Barry Sterner, the head of Townstone, and they found out a small portion that he criti criticized crime in Chicago, which were the very same statements that the Democrat mayor of Chicago had said. Well, they went after him for six to seven years, harassed him into paying a hundred thousand dollar fine, all wrong, no one ever accused him of of indiscrimination, they in fact did a survey of all of the people in the area that uh that that Townstone served and not one person said that they w- believed that discrimination was occurring. All of that was done at the CFPB over a series of years, and when we went behind the the the curtain, we found that it escalated at key points about what different debates that we were having in this country, not unlike to the George Floyd situation. So they were taking out frustration on Barry Sterner and his company because they could. And that is what we mean by a weaponized agency against the American people, and I can point to Cordova, and I can point to other examples of that, but that is what we found when we took control of the agency and what we tried to put an end to.

Yeah, thank you, and sadly that's been true across the whole spectrum, and I think, you know, in every committee of jurisdiction we could have, you know, hours of testimony talking about how that's changed. And so, thank you for, you know, being at the hub there. Uh, in your role, I guess just Could you give us a little clarity on where we're we're going on open banking? Uh, because there was, you know, some effort there, some lack of statutory guidance, but there's clearly a role for calling balls and strikes there for whose property is is whose in the in the realm of banking.

We are very close to having a proposed rule. It is one of those things that I would like a newly confirmed director to be able to finalize. Uh, but we are very close. Uh, we will take our timing from the Senate as to the confirmation of hopefully Brian Johnson, uh but we are supportive of open banking as a concept and we're we're working hard on that role.

Gentleman's time has expired.

Thank you.

Sure, now recognize the ranking member of our of our subcommittee on national security, Miss Beatty of Ohio for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and ranking member, director, vote. Section ten seventy-one of the diaphragm requires the collection of small business lending data to identify disparities in access to credit. and enforce fair lending laws for small businesses. Yet under your leadership, the CFPB has sought to delay and significantly scale back implementation of this statutory requirement. Even though women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses have faced long-documented barriers to accessing capital, director votes section three forty-two of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to maintain an umwe office to promote diversity, in the Bureau's workforce, increased opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses in contracting, and access to diversity policies and practices of regulated financial institutions. However, multiple news reports have indicated that under your leadership, the CFPB has dramatically reduced the OMWI office as part of a broader workforce cuts raising questions about whether the Bureau can still carry out the statutory requirements. Director Vogt, I have heard directly from community development financial institutions in my state that they have experienced month-long delays in receiving funding that Congress had already appropriated through the CDFI funds. Those delays created uncertainty for lenders that finance affordable housing, small businesses, and underserved communities, even though Congress had already approved the funding. Director vote. The recently released comprehensive housing council notice of funding opportunities is a drastic change from previous years. The comprehensive funding is supposed to help families meet their housing needs, whether they are renters, homeowners, or homeless. Instead, under the notice of funding opportunity, none of the CHC fundings allowed by Congress can be used for pre-purchasing housing counseling at a time when there is a national crisis for first-time homeowners. In case you aren't aware, we passed a bipartisan housing bill because of this. Director, uh, vote. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires the Bureau to consult a small business panel. A sma- I am a small business owner for more than thirty years. and to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before imposing rules with a significant economic impact. Director Vogt, can you uh tell me who uh is your OMWI director?

Well, we have that office.

Just give me a name.

We have that office.

Just give me a name. Wait a minute. Because of time, I'm a respected chairman, I need a name or a yes or no. Do you know who your OMWI yes or no,

I think it's I

do you know who your OMWI director is?

Sorry, what office are you referring to?

Yes or no? The office of OMWE. Which was which was put in by Dodd-Frank section three forty-two of OMWE.

What's the non-acronym? What's the non-acronym? What is the non-acronym?

So that that means you don't know.

No, I just don't know what your acronym means.

That's quite embarrassing.

I don't know what your acronym means.

Mister Chairman, I'ma take my time back. Let me tell you something.

I'm happy to answer in Q and P.

This is, no, you're not answering it because either you know the director and you know the person's name I've had Democrat and Republicans over your department to come in here. Since someone mentioned Cathy Crandinger, she came, she testified, she supported AMUI. When we had Mick Melvaney, he came in and testified. Rich Cordray did, Chopin did, everyone before you. It's embarrassing and insulting. This was created through Dodd-Frank. So, let me ask you this, what is your justification for efforts to halt on the small business lending data on the collection which Congress explicitly required?

We're not halting it. We just did a rule on ten seventy one to make sure we go forward and and implement the statute as you spelled it out in Congress.

Well, that's not the information we had. So let me move on. What role what role did your what role did you or officials at OMB

Well, I don't know how you can mess it up.

play in delaying the CDFI fund distribution?

We didn't delay it. We just authorized it to go out and apportion the funds to Treasury. They are twenty five and twenty six funds, which means they do not Okay, let me go to my, clinics that provide gender affirming hormone let me go to my next que- le- let me go to my next question. therapy instead of clientele of any age. Let me go to my question.

I I reclaim my time. You're not gonna do this. You're not gonna do this with me. Okay, I'm gonna respect you, and you're gonna respect me, so I'll go back to Amri. It is my suggestion that you send to me in writing who your director is and what are your plans to comply with section three forty two of OMWI. And I yield back.

The general one's time has expired, and I appreciate the director's response to that question in writing. Chair, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mister Timmins, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Acting Director Vogt, for being with us today and for your leadership in returning the CFPB to its statutory mission. This was a really good contrast because I I I think back to June thirteenth of twenty twenty four. I sat in this hearing with director Chopra and we debated the proper role and scope of the CFPB. He repeatedly invoked quote uh the democratic rule of law, while arguing against any con uh congressman Andy Barr's tabs act, and other carefully considered legislative proposals designed to provide greater accountability and stability for the bureau. He opposed efforts to curb the CFPB's dramatic policy swings, even though those swings have created uncertainty and imposed real costs. on American businesses. At the time I told him, quote, come January, whoever is sitting in your seat will have a very, very different view of the CFPB's role. My concern was that lasting policy should come from Congress, not from an agency whose priorities can shift dramatically from one administration to the next. Um, Acting Director Vogt, would you agree that your approach reflects a fundamentally different view of the CFPB's role? And can you explain to my colleagues

We believe this is the most democratic approach to how to ensure that we're gonna s- be a good steward of the agency. Congress passed a law with regard to the CFPB and we are doing our duties under the law uh with regard to supervision enforcement regulation, when we tie very closely to the law. And so often we we we wish that Congress had given more detail when they wrote those law but we're certainly not gonna take novel theories that the law does not Counting is.

I couldn't agree with you more. As I said then, the wild swings in how the CFPB carries out its mission are not conducive to American competitiveness on the global stage. Businesses and consumers alike benefit when regulators provide consistency, predictability, and clear rules, rather than frequent shifts in policy. I told Director Chopra that when the administration changed, he and many of his Democrat colleagues would likely oppose the Bureau's new direction. as we can see in this hearing. That's why durable policy should come from Congress, not changing regulatory priorities. I appreciate the work you and your team are doing to r return the CFPB to its statutory mission and provide a more transparent consistent and accountable approach that benefits both consumers and the businesses in my district. Now let's turn to what comes next. One of the recurring concerns we've heard from banks and credit unions is the amount of duplication between CFPB examinations and those already conducted by the prudential regulators. The discussion draft before us would encourage a more tailored supervisory framework that relies on the expertise of those regulators while preserving the CFPB's authority to step in when real consumer risks emerge. From your perspective, how would a more coordinated supervisory approach reduce unnecessary duplication and allow the CFPB to better focus its resources on protecting consumers?

Well, I think it's a vital piece of it. If you look on the backside of our supervision, uh work you will see a calendar that is uh open to all of the regulators, including the state regulators, so that when we have an interest in asking questions of a particular entity, we can align those with the uh the event uh uh p calendar of other regulators, and we think it's a really important part part of the process to make this as easy on them as possible.

Thank you for that. Do you believe that reducing overlapping examinations free examiners to spend more time identifying bad actors, instead of repeatedly reviewing institutions with established compliance programs?

Yes.

The same principle applies to the Bureau of Supervision of non-bank financial companies. The CFPB's resources should be focused where the risks to consumers are greatest, not spread so broadly that responsible companies face unnecessary uncertainty, while bad actors receive less attention. Um, how would the reforms in this discussion draft help the bureau better prioritize its resources while giving responsible businesses greater regulatory certainty.

We wanna know where their actual problems are in consumer financial markets. Um, that takes examiners being freed up to focus on it, to, to look at trends, and we wanna make sure they have the ability to do that, and I think the extent to which you're freeing us up to do that would be helpful.

One question, how often do employees at the CFPB work at six thirty on a Friday afternoon? Is that a regular thing or is it more business hour, bank hours, nine to five?

I doubt they're working that late on that on that particular thing.

Okay. I just wanna point out that the last thing Director Chopra did before he left, um, was send out a number of CIDs at six thirty PM on a Friday. And that's the kind of uh, it really just defines his legacy of using the CFPB in ways it was not intended to do. That's not consumer protection, that's just retaliation, and it's a good thing that we are moving in uh a much better direction.

You just gave a great data point for why we did the humility pledge.

Thank you. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, sir. Sure, now recognize the ranking member on our task force of monetary policy, the gentleman from California, Mister Vargas, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, uh, ranking member. Well, I guess we can all agree on one thing. We're all gonna be happy when you're gone, including yourself. And the reason for that, I think that there's been a tidal wave of harm to consumers since you've been at the CFPB, a tidal wave. Special interests are being protected and supported, just like you involved yourself in that getting that big one big ugly bill passed. And you said you were gonna be draining the swamp. That's what you said you sounded here earlier too. You said we when you talked, either you're the royal we or you and the president are the same. You're gonna be draining the swamp. Well, what's really happening, it's expanding. And it really is unfortunate. And you see this humility pledge. It's not a humility pledge, it's a surrender pledge. And that's what you're doing. You're surrendering to large businesses. You don't have the consumers in mind at all anymore. And you make up numbers. You make up numbers. It's cost three hundred billion dollars. No, real numbers is the money that went back to consumers that were getting ripped off previously, under the other administration, when you actually got money back when you were defrauded. Instead you have this humility pledge, you go in with your examiners and say, we're here kneeling before you big business, we're here for you, not for the consumers. That's what you're doing today. And again, uh, you said yourself you're not gonna be unhappy when you're not here, you're ready to leave. We're all ready to see you. This, this bureau was created to protect consumers. And that's not what you're doing at all. In fact, quite the opposite. You're protecting big businesses. That's what you're doing. And I, and I was kind of curious, you throw out words like cavalier and swagger. The whims of an ideologue at the bureau. I'm, I did wanna, I was gonna ask you if you didn't bite your tongue when you said that. I mean, I don't know of a b- Person who is more cavalier that has come before us, more swagger, or bigger ideologue. I mean, you seem to describe yourself well. I don't know if you were attempting to do that. And with that, I'm just saying I'm I'll be very happy when you're gone. But unfortunately, I think we're gonna find a bunch of crap happen. You're gonna see redlining happen. You're gonna see discrimination. You're gonna see fraud. You're gonna see that businesses got away with a lot of things because you weren't the cop on the beat. You weren't at all. In fact, you were there for the businesses, for the big businesses, for the big special interests, you weren't there for the consumers. Well that mister um unless the ranking member wants me to yield some time, that's what I wanted to say.

No, keep going. I like what you're doing.

No, I I think I said what I meant and I think I said enough. With that, Mister Chair, I yield back.

Gentleman from California yields back and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Loudermilk, for five minutes.

Uh, thank you Mister Chairman. Vote. Uh, we appreciate you being here today. Um, you know, the CFPB was designed, no matter how flawed that design was, was to protect consumers. But I think it's been clear to many of us who have sat at least in the dais and on this side of the room, that uh for many years that was not what the CFPB was doing, but it was a name and shame organization against businesses and industries that it determined or its director determined they did not like. That is not the design, that is not the constitutional design, nor the uh design of what any government agency should be. And so our constitutional system entrusts Congress with writing the laws and the executive branch with faithfully executing them. That distinction is fundamental to ensuring that significant policy decisions are made by the people's elected representatives, rather than by administrative agencies. Which is what we've seen within CFPB for many years, is writing their own rules and uh proceeding with their own agenda. Many have questions whether the CFPB under the Biden administration at times interpreted broadly worded statutes in way that that effectively created new legal obligations beyond those Congress expressly enacted. Mister Vogt, do you agree that whether intended or not, that sort of behavior can erode confidence in both the agency and the regulatory process?

I do.

Thank you. Uh, could you discuss how the CFPB is

Well, we have imposed a clear bar on doing any enforcement that is really a back-end way to do regulation. Uh, we uh dismissed those cases, uh, and as a result uh, we are very much in line with our priorities that are looking for consumer fraud that's identifiable and measurable, uh, but not to do it in a way, uh, that we're using a novel lear legal theory to interrupt f- federal bankruptcy laws, or some other aspect of statute that was never given to the CFPB.

Well, thank you for that. And, um, I think what I hear, especially from the other side, is that operating within the the scope of what y- the agency was legally authorized to do is somehow abandoning uh consumer protection. We have seen, many of us who have been here for a while have seen how the CFPB continually uh, I wouldn't even call it mission creep, but mission advancement would start regulating areas they were specifically prohibited from being into. One hallmark of good government is that agencies fully consider both the benefits and the cost of their regulatory actions before imposing new requirements on the American people. Consumer protection and economic opportunity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, regulations are most effective when they are carefully tailored to address demonst demonstrable consumer harm while avoiding unnecessary costs that may ultimately be borne by consumers through higher prices, reduced access to credit, or fewer financial products. That principle is reflected in the transparency and cost-benefit analysis, my legislation requires CFPB to conduct more robust economic analysis and publicly evaluate the expected costs and benefits of its significant regulatory actions. Greater transparency not only improves the quality of an agency decision-making, but also allows Congress, regulated entities, consumers, and the public to better understand the rationale underlying the CFPB's action. Mr. Vogt, from your perspective, how would you rec- how would you require more rigorous cost benefit analysis and greater transparency in the rulemaking process to improve CFPB's uh ability to create effective regulation?

Great question. First of all, we're already doing it because we have brought in so-called independent agency regulations into the OIRA structure. So we are already doing that now, but it would be very valuable to have that be a requirement. Uh, so that uh you would force the agency to do that, even if there was a different administration that doesn't have the same view as it regards to independent agencies.

Alright. Liz, I'm running short on time, I just wanna say thank you for the job you're doing, I hope that you continue uh leading this direction to where it will truly uh represent consumers with that. Mister Chairman, uh you're back.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Illinois, Mister Kasten, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for being here today. Um, I I wanna just first flag that there's an intellectual consisten inconsistency at the heart of your testimony today. You've said multiple times that the CFPB under your predecessor was a political agency, and you've opposed the fact that Congress specifically made CFPB independent to isolate it from political pressures. You can choose one but not the other. Do don't I'm not asking for your opinion on that because your opinion's wrong. The we chose to isolate it from political and we chose that in a political process in the best sense of the word. The job we have is political because balancing equities in a democracy is a political choice. When you drive home today, and you fill your car with gas, you will pay the listed price for gasoline, not the price that the gas station thinks you can afford to pay, because we passed a law that protects consumers against the political interests of a more powerful and agent set of players in our economy. You you may politically believe that you should stand with bullies against the bullied. You may politically believe that you should favor the powerful over the weak and the merciless over the meek. Those are political choices that you make. We made the CFPB independent to protect us from that. It and I wan- and I wanna, That's fundamentally democratic. I'm not asking for a, I will let you know when I'd like you to speak. Let's quantify some of the pain you have created on our society because Since you have come in, the CFPB has voluntarily dismissed more than twenty enforcement cases that would have returned three and a half billion dollars to consumers, who were ripped off or defrauded. E- examples of a couple of those, these are all from the CFPB websites. The, uh, you abandoned a lawsuit against a bank that mistreated seniors and disabled customers. Um, a disabled woman who had tried to get a replacement card on the CFPB website, but this left her unable to pay her rent and forced her to take out an eight hundred dollar loan. You eliminated agen- an order against a credit union that had charged service members, veterans, people who have served our country, who've risked their life for our country, Department of Defense employees with eighty million dollars in illegal fees. One service member said those undisclosed charges were a huge part as to why I had to file for bankruptcy. So my question right now for you as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, what is your message today to the active duty service members, the veterans, the disabled folks, the senior citizens, the consumers, who do not believe they have an advocate in your office anymore. Why should they trust you?

I don't agree with your characterization.

I'm asking what your message is to the people who wrote those messages on the CFPB website and said, " I need help."

I don't agree with your

Do you do you not care about them?

We go around to military bases, we do this, the financial literacy all over the time.

I'm I'm I'm anecdotes are not data. Three and a half billion dollars is data. You claimed a moment ago

You just you just used an anecdote to argue against me.

That the CFPB has been a net cost to our society.

And now you're saying the anecdotes are not data?

Three and a half billion dollars is data. All of those cases that were dropped were data. You said a moment ago that the CFPB is a net cost to society, but you know that for every dollar that the CFPB spent, it returned three dollars to consumers. You claim to be a fiscally responsible guy. How does abandoning efforts to provide billions of dollars in financial remedies and just turning this agency into a net cost consumer, how does that help consumers? How does that help America?

We cut the agency in half and returned four hundred million dollars that we didn't need to draw from the treasure, from the Federal Reserve.

To who? Y- sir, you understand that the United States economy actually has a private sector? When you take three dollars from consumers to save a dollar in the federal government, I'll give you a second, the math don't math.

I'm not gonna concede the framework that suggests that all of the costs being put on by the agency

That's that's because you are lying. You you you Have you, my goodness. You are smarter than this. You've said previously that uh that the CFPB is a victory for the little guy, all your cuts. Is it your position that the majority of these terminated settlements were initially brought by mom and pop against mom and pop companies that you've protected small businesses through your actions?

The majority of these were based on uh enforcement actions that we did not have the authority or were inconsistent with our guidelines,

OK, so the beneficiaries, according to Bloomberg, seventy percent of the beneficiaries from your cancelled settlements were firms that had more than five hundred million dollars in annual revenue, listed on the S and P five hundred. That's who you've protected. That's a choice. Last question, the the the ranking member had talked about some of what happened with Doge. According to court filings, you sent an email granting Doge employees unfettered access to

I will say generally as a, as the director of the agency,

Gentleman Thomas expired and

I was in charge of the administration being able to do its job at the, at the CFPB.

Uh, feel free to uh answer that question in writing in detail.

Okay.

Uh, gentleman Thomas expired, chair now recognized, gentleman from Indiana.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and and thank you, Director Vogt, for being here and I'll say thank you for your humility today. Um, you're taking a lot from the other side, which I think has been quite um quite disturbing, especially uh my friend from California who's now left. Um, I know him and I know you. And I believe you both are are good, strong, honest people who could probably work a lot of these things out, rather than making a wild accusation from the dais. Uh, I'm gonna miss seeing you there. Yes. Um, uh, the other thing, and I and I'm kind of curious if anybody on the other side of the aisle has actually read the CFPB humility and supervisions pledge. I looked it up. And I think if uh if they were on the other side of the desk, if CFPB walked in to see them, they would be happy to hear the pledge that uh is made, because just just a couple of these points, the upcoming supervision examination cycle is going to be fundamentally different from the prior ones under the former Director Chopra which, bringing up uh Mr. Chopra, former Director Chopra made the agency political, pretending otherwise it is a classic attempt by the to the other side of the aisle is trying to rewrite the history. And so I find it pretty rich coming from the people who defended Chopra constantly, that he was at the White House every other week pushing the Biden political agenda. Would you agree with that?

I believe he certainly was a political appointee. Uh, he was nominated by the Biden administration. Uh, and he was a policy official for the for that administration. And honestly, that's what democracy is about. is policy officials that come in with an administration doing the work of the executive branch based on an election.

Well, I wanna go on back to the supervision's pledge, uh, for this round of examinations there will be greater transparency regarding the process and clarity regarding expectations. I think that's what we're all concerned, have been concerned about from CFPB from the very beginning, that this is a little empire under itself that has uh very little accountability that with the right person to accomplish an agenda without accountability is what the other side of the aisle wanted rather than actually holding them accountable to be sure that the people that it it uh regulated were protected. And um and so it it's easy for them to make out uh you know these those who were regulated by the CFPB as the boogeyman when actually they made life more difficult for those who they were saying they were trying to protect. Um, I I think one of the most, um, troubling examples of the CFPB overreach under prior leadership was the Townstone case. In this case, CFPB, uh, advanced a novel legal theory that sought to expand the Equal Credit Opportunity Act beyond its traditional purview to regulate speech and marketing directed at prospective customers. Many viewed that move as another example of the Bureau attempting to law through enforcement. I was very pleased to see the CFPB, under your leadership, seek to vacate the final judgment citing infringement on the defendant's first amendment rights. Looking back on the Townstone case, what do you believe it says about the enforcement philosophy of the previous leadership, and how has your approach differed?

Uh, it had differed starkly. Townstone was one of the the the best examples. not the only example of the extent to which uh we saw direct evidence, particularly when we did the oversight within the agency of the way that they were uh ratcheting up the pressure on this particular mortgage lender, because he had a podcast that was concerned with crime. And he had made comments that were the basically the exact same thing that a democratic mayor of Chicago had made and yet they went after him for six to seven years, in an attempt to ruin him. Uh he ultimately settled for a hundred thousand dollars, we tried to overturn it, we were unable to in court, uh but I was very proud to try and to call on behalf of the agency and to apologize to Mister Sterner.

Thank you. And then finally, do you share our concerns that the current Dodd-Frank era statute and structure make the CFPB more susceptible to being weaponized again?

Yes, because you do not have to come and ask for the resources from Congress each and every year to remain accountable to the American people.

Alright, thank you. You think we should take action.

Yes. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Miss Presley, for five minutes.

Uh, director Vota, I I too am I'm glad uh that you're leaving. Uh sadly your harm will remain uh for generations uh to come. I've every reason to believe that uh history will judge you harshly. Uh especially in that you were a key author of project twenty twenty five again implications that we'll be feeling for generations like this five hundred billion dollars director vote that's how much medical debt americans hold in fact many families have medical debt over fifty thousand dollars now that may not be a lot of money to republicans like trump who quote don't think about americans financial situation but that is a lot of money for most people this is debt people accumulated during the most challenging times in their lives, like battling cancer or recovering from an accident. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under Biden, issued rules making sure that medical debt would not be reported on credit reports and put guardrails around how that debt can be collected. Common sense things, like companies not being able to come after you for bills you've already paid. Now to be clear, these kinds of protections were supported by families throughout the country, director Bo. in rural communities, in urban communities, in suburban communities, and in democratic and republican districts. But director vote, you took that away. When you rescinded those rules, director vote, give me one reason why companies should be able to harass cancer survivors to collect more than they owe for a medical bill.

Well, they shouldn't be able to harass, and we have laws on the books that, but the rules that w- we changed were specifically

Give me one good reason. You rescinded the rule where medical debt would not

the rules that we specifically Because the statute didn't allow it.

One credit reports, give me what, you don't have one good reason. Moving on. There is not one good reason.

The statute literally said the reverse.

You claim, you you avow that you are a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, so I'm sure you spent some time in Sunday school.

That's a pejorative and you know what's harder.

Did did I'm sorry, did you happen upon a scripture that said, " Thou shall make their neighbor poorer, hungrier, sicker, and less safe"?

I'm not.

Cuz that's actually what you've done. I didn't ask you to speak. This makes no sense. You are as incompetent as you are cruel and callous. Seriously, there are millions of families who have had to deal with an unexpected medical crisis, including yours, I'm sure. Because cancer and illness do not discriminate. They don't care how fat your wallet is or what your zip code is. Everyone has been faced with some unexpected crisis that interrupted their life and destabilize their financial future, carrying the burden of caregiving, carrying the burden of sleepless nights, carrying the burden of debt unpaid, medical bills. But what upsets me most, please look at me, what upsets me most is the shame that people carry about that debt. So let me be clear to families throughout the country, the only people who should be ashamed of medical debt is the Republican Party because they have obstructed progress. for affordable health care at every turn. And then they rescinded the rule that would have given you so relief.

Would the gentlelady yield? Would the gentlelady yield?

I will not. This is my time.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I will not yield. This is my time. And he's on his way out the door and he needs to know exactly the harm he has caused, I'd be but the American people deserve to know. We sh- we should talk about Obamacare. I will not yield.

Rob, Rob.

Why are you speaking to me, why are you speaking to me when I didn't yield to you? Direct your vote. You have gutted the CFPB, you have dropped settlements the CFPB brought against predatory companies that were supposed to provide relief to customers. Three hundred and sixty million dollars to help people gone. Americans are in dire need of financial relief, but Trump and his cult conspirators, his cults of cult conspirators are making life worse for everyday people, and I mean everyone. Women, the disabled, young people, seniors, veterans, immigrants, and especially people of color, who are most burdened by debt and predatory collection reporting practices. That is exactly why I introduced legislation to stop you from hurting people, like getting rid of consumer protections related to medical debt. The American public deserves better. They deserve better than you. They deserve a CFPB director who puts the consumer protection in this. who actually gives a damn. Instead of attacking hard-working families who are financially trapped by Trump's reckless policies. Consumer protection should not be a partisan issue or a political game. You have dedicated your career to helping corporations get richer, making families sicker,

General Mustapha is fired.

under your board, and less safe, and there is nothing Christian about that.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Rose, for five minutes. Mister Rose, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you Chairman Hill, and thank you uh, Ranking Member Waters for holding this important hearing, and Director Vogt, thank you for being with us today. Uh, Director Vogt, if you'd like, I'd like to give you a little bit of time to respond to the attack on your Christian faith.

No need to. She's using pejoratives that the other side is continues to use. That's okay.

Well thank you, and again thank you for being here with us today. Uh, Director Vogt, one of the recurring concerns surrounding the CFPB's small business lending rule implementing section ten seventy-one of the Dodd-Frank Act has been the privacy implications associated with collecting and publishing detailed information regarding small business credit applicants. While Congress directed the CFPB to con- to collect certain information, it did not adequately protect against the unnecessary public disclosure of information that could reveal sensitive details about individual businesses or their owners. Small businesses deserve confidence that proprietary financial information submitted to comply with federal law will be appropriately safeguarded and that transparency does not come at the expense of privacy. That is the reason I introduced the Bank Loan Privacy Act to require the CFPB to clarify, through notice and comment rulemaking, how this information will be published while better protecting confidential information. Could you discuss how the CFPB can fill its statutory obligations under section ten seventy-one while ensuring that sensitive information regarding small businesses is protected from unnecessary public disclosure we agree we are going to in the absence of your bill we're gonna put it through notice and comment to make sure the public has a chance to comment on it thank you i appreciate that greatly effective regulation requires agencies to prioritize finite supervisory resources, and you've talked about that today where they are most needed frankly. Institutions with strong compliance management systems, histories of cooperation, and low-risk business models should not necessarily be subject to the same supervisory intensity as firms with repeated compliance failures or evidence of consumer harm at a risk-based supervisory framework not only allows the CFPB to focus on its greatest threats to consumers um it also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on risk.

Uh, thank you for the question. We've done a lot of work to free up examiners by not requiring them to be in uh person for eight hours a day, eight examiners uh for eight weeks that we believe, based on the travel budgets of the agency, were basically junkets. Um, so we have both freed up examiners and then we've been very clear about our priorities. We want to find uh identifiable victims with measurable and material consumer damages uh as opposed to just paperwork violations.

Thank you. Um, you've you've had an opportunity to see up close and personal how CFPB has worked and how it has failed. And I so I'd like your your insights about how ambiguous regulatory standards coupled with an independent funding source and a single director structure uniquely insulate the bureau from standard checks and balances and why is comprehensive reform necessary to protect both consumers and the broader financial industry?

Well, I mean, it's vital. This has been a a a a an agency that has had an edge to it, as I've said. Um, it it has been unaccountable to Congress and to the administration and we have taken steps to deal with that. Um, I think it's important that that appropriations be uh a part of that reform. Uh, I think a single director uh is is important because uh they all of these agency heads work for the President of the United States and some of these um uh kind of bipartisan panels are a little bit more of a feature uh prior to some of the recent uh Supreme Court decisions. So, These were all really important reforms and I really hope that you're able to pass some of them.

Thank you, Director Vogt. What is the purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act and how does adhering to its requirements benefit consumers?

The bottom line is that the APA allows the public to know the extent to which Congress, or that the administration will be doing the lawmaking that you delegated essentially us, by virtues of the statute that you've given us, and and there's all manner of detail that goes into rule making that the public needs to be able to say,

Yes.

hey this is gonna have real costs, this park could have real benefits, and we need to know that before we make final decisions, why we do a proposed stage, why we do a final stage.

Thank you, Director Vogt, we appreciate your service to the nation.

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey,

This is

Mister Godheimer, for five minutes. You need to go.

Yeah. Yeah, she's

Oh, OK. Uh,

Don't worry.

sorry. OK.

Okay, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Vogt, in your capacity as the Director of OMB, you impounded numerous grant programs that directly impacted residents of New Jersey, including sixteen billion in funds for the Gateway Train project. I was proud to help pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill which helped fund the most important infrastructure project in our nation. The impoundment of these funds put more than ninety five thousand jobs and twenty billion dollars at risk for our economy. Can you explain to me why you felt it was necessary to impound the funds that have had a direct impact on the lives of people in my home state? And and I'm really curious to to hear

They were not impoundments, they were going through a policy review as to the degree to which those contracts had been b based on DEI preferences. The DOT has has um been in charge of that review, um and I believe is moving forward on the project.

Yeah, but everyone had signed off on it. There wasn't a DEI issue.

What's that?

You you had everyone sign off on it, it just held up the project and

No, there was a review. There was a review that could not occur in the middle of that shutdown, but there was a rev review done.

Uh, Director, there are concerns with the rapid rise in children accessing prediction markets in sports books. That's why I'm taking action introducing legislation that requires prediction markets and online sports books to use facial recognition technology to verify users' age before they place a wager or make a trade. Director, shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that our children are not placing bets and gambling online?

That's not something we've taken a look at, but we're happy to take a look at any of the legislation that Congress has before it.

What do you think of the idea? Are you concerned with children?

I'm not gonna speak to things that are outside my portfolio.

Okay. According to twenty twenty five, internet crime complaint center's elder fraud report, the FBI received more than two hundred thousand complaints from victims over the age of sixty totaling approximately seven point seven billion dollars in losses that's an egregious number in financial scams that target our seniors need to be addressed. The ethos of the Trump administration has been fraud and abuse. Director, is the CFPB doing anything to crack down on this staggering fraud?

W we believe that there is fraud in the consumer financial protection markets and that's what our and supervision work is aimed at countering.

Have you

Uh, we reject the the characterization, or I reject the characterization that of how you described the administration.

How do you feel about, uh, but elder fraud over all your things is an issue we should be spending more time on?

Of course.

Right, and and if that's been something that you've made progress on during your period of time?

It's certainly within the degree of of of things that we worked out of the CFPB.

I think our, you know, Representative Wagner and I are working on a piece of legislation called the uh Financial Exploitation and Prevention Act which uh passed the house representatives in in June of uh twenty twenty six i i'd really love you to take a look at it if you would.

Sure.

Thank you. The government in my opinion should responsibly and transparently put AI to work by cutting red tape. This includes speeding up permits, translating public meetings, and shortening the time Americans wait on services they need. It also remains important in my opinion that AI is utilized as a tool to ensure the United States remains economically strong in our ongoing competition with China, while of course protecting Americans in every which way. Director in your capacity as the Director of OMB, you're responsible for managing how the federal government uses AI. You mind talking a little bit about how you are directing federal agencies to responsibly integrate AI to ensure that Americans receive better services from their government?

Well, we're encouraging them to use AI, uh, to do important work that they might, uh, be underway. We're sharing best practices with them from other parts of the agencies that, uh, we we get a bird's eye view of. Uh we're pioneering it ourselves with regard to uh ways that we can assess uh what spending is consistent with the administration's policy agenda, so from a a wide degree uh perspective, we're trying to use AI and encourage it.

Are you putting any guardrails in place as you do it? Like how are you to make sure that it's used the right way, or that there's not threats to our uh critical infrastructure or have you have you looked at that perspective?

We have put out guidance um over the course of this last year and a half and i'm happy to share some of those guidances with you

i'd love to learn more about best practices where where in government you see it working well how it's made government more efficient how it's cut bureaucracy uh that'd be really helpful if that's something we could follow up on with you

be happy to

thanks so much i yield back

gentlemen yield back

mr. chair mr. chair uh asking an consent

you you yes what is the general woman's sick recognition for

thank you mr. chair asking

Without objection, I'll be including the record, Chair recognizes the Chair of our subcommittee on digital assets. Mister Stahl, you're uh recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much, uh, Mister Chairman, Director Vogt. Thank you for being with us uh today. I wanna start with a thank you. This committee passed uh legislation to provide consumer protection uh in the earned wage access space. uh passing my bill, the Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act, uh you and your staff provided uh helpful technical assistance. I just wanna say thank you. Um we've talked a little bit about the structure of the CFPB uh and if you serve on this committee uh the sway of how much uh individuals agree or disagree with the director of the CFPB uh seems to go with the political persuasion and their alignment with the administration I think you're doing a great job, may the record reflect. Uh but I think there are structural deficiencies of the CFPB uh you spoke to this, in particular the ability uh to sue and settle, uh to try to drive a political agenda, but also uh to fund the CFPB. Uh you spoke on this a little bit before, but in your position also is the chair of the full uh uh is is director of OMB, writ large. Uh can you just comment a little further as to what the risks are of having agencies uh that have their own self-funding structure uh and can make pl make decisions that impact the funding not just in this administration, but writ large on the structure.

i think those uh i think it's a profound issue i think it's very important to not have the seesaw impact with regard to um the extent to which you have such uncertainty with regard to a a new administration coming on board and how it approaches some of these discretionary jump also subjecting it to appropriations is is massively important and i just also wanna say thank you for your work on the wage access products they're very innovative Um, and we were happy to to put out guidance along those lines.

Uh, thank you, to to follow up on the on the risk of of the uh the swings, uh, we have seen attacks on our state-based uh insurance regulations. Um, the the CFPB I think has the opportunity to continue to build clear jurisdictional boundaries uh in this space. I is that something you're thinking about or looking at at the CFPB?

Uh, we are not looking to invade, uh, the uh, the regulatory space of the insurance markets. That's something that is uh very entirely not ours.

I I appreciate that, I think that's right. I think we're well served uh by our state-based insurance program. Um there was a lot of talk earlier uh about the actions to continue to root out waste, fraud and abuse uh inside and the great work that's being done inside this administration uh Vice President J.D. Vance uh Chair of the President's uh Fraud Task Force uh was in Wisconsin recently joined by Doctor Oz um there are big opportunities

Well, the president has made it an all of government effort, uh, and certainly the vice president is running the task force in ensuring that there are no bureaucratic hurdles to ensuring that we have the resources to go after it uh with investigations and CMS. to pool the ig community to make sure that we're enforcing uh even if there might be uh a reluctance on some fraud cases to not uh take it because it's it might be viewed in in small amounts but we have taken the reverse view we have taken that kind of a broken windows approach to fraud that i think is gonna pay huge dividends and we're learning what statutory reforms are gonna be needed for you all to come along and give us additional tools

uh i i appreciate that cause i think that's really significant it's actually it makes me reflect back on the Vice President's visit uh to Milwaukee. We were highlighting a specific case of fifteen million dollars of fraud, uh and one of the reporters asked um, you know, it's a it's a drop in the bucket, it's just fifteen million dollars. Uh, and that is a really dangerous approach, uh, that we have seen some of our federal agencies historically take, in particular in the Biden administration. Uh, and I appreciate you and the administration uh, the approach of making sure that we're actually holding people accountable for wasting

Gentlemen, yields back. Gentlemen, yields back. Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan, Miss Tlaib, you're recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you so much, Mister Chairman. Uh, director vote, is it true or false that uh your agency has dismissed and terminated more than forty lawsuits and settlements against predatory companies?

These were not predatory com companies.

I'm time Yeah, yeah. Are you friends with Capital One?

With Capital One? No, I don't know them.

Walmart?

No.

Zelle?

No.

You reversed even settlements against Toyota. Navy Federal Bank of America.

Would you like to know why?

Oh sure. Cuz it looks like the past directors, you're getting so defensive. You're not friends with them. I wanted to make sure it wasn't personal. You're not friends with them, right? It's a it's a direct question. Who do you work for, director?

President of the United States.

No. You work

I

for the people of the United States. You do not work for the president. You have legislation laws that we pass. as elected body members here, you do not work for the president. Wrong. You take an oath to the people of this country and we pass laws that you are supposed to enforce. You do not work for the president. So that's probably why you

I think the founders, I think the founding fathers would have a different view, Congressman.

Oh, I I I am so glad this is on record. You should be fired,

Me too.

cuz you work for the people, not not the president. None of us work for the president. None of us.

The president won an election democratically.

I understand. I'm not, hey, I'm not.

They put him in office.

I actually don't contest that like you all do. Now, is it true? These cases and others dropped, lawsuits could have returned hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers?

They could have also said terrible regulatory initiative and enforcement decisions.

I'd like to enter into the record, director vote.

Listen to this.

Um, a memo, chairman, uh, from the protect borrowers, the Consumer Federation of America and Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund Cuz I want the American people to see all the lawsuits you filed. W- without objection, that must be included in the lawsuit. You you decided you didn't file, you actually decided not to pursue those lawsuits. And Mister Chair, it's important for the American people to know this. Is it true or false, before two thousand and five, CFPB only dropped one enforcement action and never terminated a settlement?

I actually don't know. What is the answer?

Yeah, you don't know because you think that you work for the president. You actually don't see what the agency was created for. Why do you think the agency was created? Because of the president? Because Congress created the agency because of the awful financial distress that it happened on our American people. You can blink your eyes all you want. Last year Americans lost roughly sixteen billion dollars to fraud, twenty-five percent increase from twenty-twenty-four, on your watch. The highest level on record, on your watch. In fact, CFPB has received more consumer complaints in fourteen months than in the first fourteen years of its existence. Your watch. Dr. Ville, do you think it's it's a just a coincidence that the consumer complaints have reached a all-time high at the same very time same time that your agency has pulled back enforcement and dropped cases, cut staff and revoked guidance?

There's a market reason for what was going on that we've addressed.

Because you're friends with Bank of America? Walmart? Zelle? Are you friends with them? Do you work for them? I'm saying this because you dropped all these lawsuits.

No, I'm not friends.

These lawsuits didn't come out of thin air. It's because they did wrong.

They were novel legal theories that were not based on the issue.

Oh novelty. So all those complaints from our residents are novelty? They're not real?

No, that's the consumer portal of which we look at very

Oh, OK.

closely and have take steps to make sure we know what's going on.

Why why don't you know, I know you're not gonna take responsibilities, cuz look, the loan sharks, Wall Street, mega banks, fi- and and I'm telling you, it is killing all of our residents, because they are you've basically sent a a a note, you know, like a a signal out there, go ahead. You're undermining they're like you signal to the scammers

Nope. Nope. We overhauled our website. We overhauled our website.

How is CFPB adhering to congressional mandated consumer protection?

It's

by removing consumer education and other materials from its website.

We did not remove materials from the website. We put it in an archive section of the website.

So you didn't remove the know your right, you archive the know your rights for veterans? You archived it?

We archived the policies of the

You archive the know your rights, Russell, for veterans. You guys can get all upset all you want. He doesn't work for the president. He doesn't work for Zell or Walmart. He works for the people of the United States. Romance fraud is a

Generalwoman's time has expired and the chair recognizes the chair of our subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Mister Muser of Pennsylvania, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you, Director, and you know, some apologies for the pejoratives, the um uh the hysteria, uh um um when when when there's no evidence or facts, very often people resort to name-calling, and they will fight like hell as we know for their big government, unrestricted, one-party socialist plan, but we have laws, we have the constitution, and I think the uh we and the American people are going to uh stop them. Uh CFPB had gross, under under Chopra, under the previous administration, gross and illegal, I believe illegal overreach. Um, I'd like to enter in the record an article from the ABA president titled " The CFPB, A Regulator Gone Rogue". In it he states, the Biden-Chopra CFPB promoted a red tape laced regulatory nanny state that threatened to debank millions of hardworking Americans by pushing them out of the banking system.

W- without objection, that would be included in the record.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh, you know no matter how much you look for evidence for promotion of the previous CFPB, you can't find any. The only one you can find is when you have the hysteria and the hostility of stating how how wonderful they are when meanwhile it was all about overreach which was well beyond uh what their uh jurisdiction was so um when they ish issued and you revoked uh under this administration sixty-seven guidance documents, eight policy statements, seven interpretive rules, thirteen advisory opinions, which community banks, large and small, and big banks thought were outrageous but tended to follow, thinking they'd they'd get in trouble from that previous B uh Biden administration, um and the previous CFPB. When you revoked all of those uh those compliance burdens, why was this ne uh action absolutely necessary?

Well, we believe deregulation uh where it is good for the the country, for the economy, for consumers, uh where it can lead to innovation is the right policy uh direction to pursue um and we were very proud to be able to uh the president had given a goal of ten for one deregulatory initiatives to everyone uh and we were able to hit sixty seven and we're very thrilled with that and um and that was one of the the key parts of the first year

ok and you're you're aware we we issued the save guidance act to assure banks that such guidance letters from a rogue director uh are not law. Do you think that was helpful? Will be helpful.

We should not be uh regulating them with guidance. Uh, guidance is something that agencies have long used to avoid notice and comment, and as a result the country doesn't have a chance to participate in articulating their concerns.

The previous CFPB was sued by eight different trade groups, banks, credit unions, online lenders, small businesses, represent the entirety of the financial service industry, That's quite a pattern of of evidence showing that they're they were beyond their statutory authority. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

Um, the resource and employees under um CFPB have shrunk since January twenty twenty five. It's close uh k seventy six percent of its open supervisory actions and resolved to dismiss the large majority of its enforcement cases. What has a smaller, more disciplined bureau been able to get done compared with the prior, larger, very broad-scoped bureau actually produced.

Well, we're both continuing our supervision and enforcement responsibilities, and we've been very set on not doing uh regulation by enforcement and dismissing cases that were either duplicative of a state regulator or there was not a grounds and statute to be for us to have taken the original action as an agency.

And CFPB was not alone. Um, uh the SBA for instance, you know, a tidy, tight organization advocating for small businesses with immense responsibilities um doubled in size during the course of of the uh of the Biden administration. And I bring that up because just to show the bloatedness of wh wh where our government was going to go and where it would go again, it went from uh seventeen hundred employees basically to almost five thousand. Now we brought it back to twenty two hundred under Secretary Loeffler. Um Are you are you seeing uh such efficiencies like uh that that have occurred there? And by the way, the number of business loans have doubled since uh the last year of the Biden administration of twenty twenty four and into uh twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six, just over a year's period.

So at the CFPB we have gone from about eight hundred million dollars spent in in twenty twenty four uh to right now we're about four hundred and sixty five million we could go lower but we're under a court order, that does not allow us to go under. So our view is that the the the the long-term steady state should be uh three hundred and fifty-seven million dollars per year.

Thank you.

Um and then you've certainly helped that by passing um legislation to lower our cap.

Gentleman's time has expired.

Thank you, Mr. I yield, Mr. Chairman.

Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Torres, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vogt, you have repeatedly asserted that the President has the constitutional authority to impound funds appropriated by Congress. And so I have a few questions about your theory of presidential impoundment. Under your theory, could the President refuse to spend a hundred percent of the funds Congress appropriates for the Department of Defense?

I don't engage in hypotheticals, Congressman. The President has articulated a view that I agree with, that for two hundred years Presidents had the ability to spend less than the appropriation, and none of those exchanges

So I'm I'm gonna move on to my next question. And cou could the President refuse to spend

Your

a hundred percent of the funds Congress appropriates for the Supreme Court.

And again, in those two hundred years of Presidents using those ex-

Is that a yes or no?

tools uh none of those Presidents did what you just asked in a hyper-refer.

Is is that a yes? Well, I'm asking if the President could do it.

I'm not answering your yes or no question.

Could the President refuse to make a hundred percent of the entitlement payments Congress has mandated under programs like Social Security and and Medicaid could he impound those funds?

The empowerment authorities are not relevant in the in in the entitlement category.

Does the word " impoundment" appear anywhere in the Constitution?

Uh, no, it does not.

Yeah. The Founding Fathers were familiar with the concept of impoundment, and if the Founders had intended to give the President the power of impoundment, they would have said so explicitly that these were not shy men. Can you cite a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the President has the constitutional authority to impound funds?

The Supreme Court has actually never spoken on this matter.

You're wrong, actually.

I'm not.

In Kendall versus United States, eighteen thirty eight, here's an exact quote, "to contend that the obligation imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution and entirely admissible, inadmissible." So it looks like the Supreme Court did speak on the topic long, one hundred and eighty-seven years before project twenty twenty five. In the spirit of originalism, I wanna share some history with you. The British monarchy once had a version of the power of impoundment. It was called the suspending power. But the crown lost the power to suspend laws, including spending laws, under the English Bill of Rights in sixteen eighty-nine. The American Revolution, as you know, was fought to overthrow the tyranny of the British monarchy. Is it seriously your position that the founding fathers intended to grant a president like Donald Trump impoundment powers that the British monarch himself did not possess? when the American people overthrew him two hundred and fifty years ago. Is that your position?

The founding fathers themselves spent less than the appropriations that they were given for two hundred years.

I'm asking about empowerment. Y- you have a theory of presidential empowerment that would make Donald Trump more powerful than the eighteenth century British monarch that we overthrew.

That's not true, and what I would what I would suggest is that you study the l- the two hundred years

It is absolutely true. Oh I've I've I've read it.

of experience under presidents who had the ability to not shove the money out the door at the end of the fiscal year, just because it had to be spent and therefore waste waste it.

I wanna move on. Let me, like Benny in your party, you suffer from CFPB derangement syndrome. And having you serve as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is a bit like having a pope who doesn't believe in Catholicism. It's an absurdity. And let's be honest, mister vote, you weren't appointed by Donald Trump to run the CFPB, you were appointed to sabotage it. in lockstep with Project twenty twenty five. During the first term of the Trump administration, the CFPB undertook twelve enforcement actions in twenty eighteen, twenty-one actions in twenty nineteen, and sixty-two actions in twenty twenty. By contrast, the CFPB in twenty twenty five has undertaken almost no enforcement actions. And so even by the standards of the first Trump administration, enforcement has all but collapsed, And the CFPB under your leadership has been an absentee regulator. I I wanna move on to cyber security. We live in a world where the Chinese Communist Party could develop an open source equivalent of mythos, which has been portrayed as a cyber weapon of mass destruction. A CCP equivalent of mythos would pose an existential threat to the cyber security of the federal government. Would you agree with that?

Uh, I'm gonna let someone else comment on those matters,

So you're not aware of current events like so- I mean,

um.

Well, where are the current events?

it's pretty important. So in October twenty twenty five, the Office of Inspector General issued a scathing assessment, downgrading the CFPB's information security maturity from level four to level two, from effective to ineffective. And so not only you, are you failing to deliver dollars to American consumers, you are endangering the sensitive information of the American people to the benefits of foreign adversaries like the CCP, The Inspector General gave you a level two for cyber security. I give you an F for failing the American people. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the General Manager from California. Miss Kim, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for hosting today's hearing and thank you, Mister Vogt, for joining us. Uh, as you know, I've long been supporting and championing the uh Community Development Financial Institution Fund. And in my district, California fortieth in Southern California, I saw firsthand the impact of CDFI funds when I visited Vera's Sanctuary. This is a licensed residential treatment center uh that dedicate to helping the victims of human trafficking. And they tell us that they would not exist without the uh funds from CDFI financial institutions. Um and this is the same thing that I'm hearing over and over across Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties that I'm privileged to represent. And I heard countless stories like that about the valuable impact CDFI Fund has in lifting uh or lifting up the American uh families. So I wanna thank you for working with me and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson to secure the release of some of the funds to the treasury so that CDFI Fund can distribute them before the experts. expiration uh date that's fast coming up. But uh as we continue to build on the um the twenty first century road to housing act and work on housing affordability, there is still considerable amount of housing construction funds that is available under the capital magnet fund. I'm sure you're aware of that. So can you provide any details as to when the recipients can expect those funds to be distributed?

Uh, I'm happy to go back to you, come back to you on that matter, uh, as you know we've apportioned all the CDFI funds that will expire in twenty six, uh, but we'll give you more detail below that.

Well, I hope we can continue to work together on seeking reforms, uh, at the CDF funds so we can ensure that those funds can be released in a timely, in efficient manner, so we can, um, allow the financial institutions to be able to utilize those funds and uplift the Uh, another avenue that I've been working to uplift American families is through the small dollar credit. Millions of Americans rely on those products to bridge the temporary financial sh- shortfalls or cover the unexpected expenses or avoid more costly alternatives. So while that's important that consumers are protected from their unfair or abusive practices it is equally important that responsible lenders have a clear and consistent regulatory framework that enables them to continue offering lawful affordable credit products. Um, so to that end, as you know, we uh I introduced the uh Small Dollar Loan Certainty Act to seek the uh greater certainty regarding the legal standards governing these products so that responsible providers can continue serving consumers while maintaining strong consumer protections so can you discuss how great a regulatory certainty for responsible small dollar lending can improve consumer access to affordable credit while we are still um identifying and addressing the generally harmful practices uh that the c cfp uh cfpb can identify

Well Congressman, I think these can be very innovative tools that meet people where they are in in need for financing. Um, we have um a small dollar rule on our regulatory agenda Uh we look to get to that, we hope to get to that as soon as possible and I'm happy to look at your legislation as to better understand what it might do.

Thank you. Uh one of the most effective ways to protect consumers is to prevent harm before it occurs. Where enforcement plays an important role, consumers also benefit when they receive clear information that helps them make informed decisions to avoid fraud, in the first place. So, director of vote, how is the CFPB balancing efforts to improve consumer financial education and prevent consumer fraud or harm.

Well, we have a very active uh financial literacy program, uh we're going across the country having webinars pretty much constantly. Uh, we've had a an emphasis in our supervision and enforcement for self-reporting, for remediation, for reconciliation, before we get to the adversarial part of the process. So we believe that from the education all throughout, uh is a is an important cycle to to have properly gone through so that we limit fraud in the future.

Thank you, thank you for saying that, because I serve as co-chair of the Financial Literacy and Wealth Creation Caucus and uh we need to do everything we can so I wanna partner with you and uh CFPB so we can focus on consumer education. In the remaining time, I'm not sure if we have but uh could you share the work you are doing to combat fraud and scams and how you have worked with financial institutions to that end?

I'll invite you to submit that in writing, Mister Director. Thank you, I do that. Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mister Liccardo, for five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Boat. Uh, during your testimony uh, you testified, and I'm just quoting here from your written statement, uh, that the purpose of the Bureau is to implement and force federal consumer financial law consistently so that all consumers have access to markets and that such markets are fair, transparent and competitive. Is that fair?

Yes.

So, are all financial markets currently fair, transparent and competitive?

We believe that it's important to make them more fair. I mean, that's why you have laws in the books, and so if you see something, say something. Uh, we take the portal very seriously. We look for things, uh, as part of supervision to identify and and do our our job to make things, uh, more transparent, more fair, wherever we can.

Do you think it's likely that markets are less than fair, less than transparent, less than competitive, as we think about, for example, payday lending?

Well, I think that the industry is an important one, and I think it's an important for consumers to have the access to products that uh are not predatory, uh that allow people to get uh loans when they need to get those loans, and I think it should be cheap to do that,

Do you

and to have good rules Of of the roads the industry abides by them.

Do you think there are some scams in payday lending in that industry?

I think there's scams in many different industries.

Are there scams in the title loan industry?

Uh, perhaps.

Are there scams in the private student lender industry?

Perhaps.

Uh, you think there might be scammers in the debt collection industry?

Yes.

And what about the credit repair industry?

Certainly.

And digital wallets and payment apps, you think there's some scams there?

Uh, I think it remains to be clear, but poten potentially.

So it seems like in a a nation of more than three hundred million people with massive number of actors in these financial industries, that there might be a target rich environment for enforcement to uphold the Bureau's role to ensure that markets are, quote, fair, transparent and competitive. Is that fair?

I think a view of a target rich environment assumes that consumers don't make decisions in their best interest, and assumes that all businesses are predatory. We're gonna look for opportunities to enforce the law and supervise companies.

And since the time you took over CFPB, there's been exactly one enforcement action

We're engaged in five enforcement actions.

filed. You filed only one.

OK.

There are others that you continued from the prior administration.

Correct.

And you've indicated an intent. to continue the enforcement of only single digits, less than ten of those. Is that fair?

We are continuing those cases. They remain priorities. We feel to think there are good reasons for them, and we're continuing.

And so, among all the industries I named, plus many others that CFPB might have jurisdiction over, given the jurisdiction provided under federal statute, your agency has initiated exactly one enforcement action in your tenure.

Well, we had a enormous uh pile-up of cases that we thought were inappropriate, that we had to work through. We set forward new enforcement and and uh supervision guidance, and we are now hard at work uh in that in that area. But if you're saying we would prefer a less adversarial process, you're right. So when we see

You have hundreds of millions of consumers in all these industries that you need to protect and you filed exactly one enforcement action under your tenure.

It doesn't That doesn't mean that we are not taking steps to work with a company that we see evidence in the in the newspaper to decide decide what what's going on with that company. We reach out to them.

So, but your written testimony indicates that you condemn a bureau driven by quote " whims of ideologues". You've been in charge of this agency for more than a year, nearly a year and a half. And exactly one enforcement action's been brought against all these actors across all these financial industries. Aren't you in a dialogue?

Absolutely not, sir.

I think the American people would disagree as I would. Thank you.

Gentlemen, yield back. Gentlemen, yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Fitzgerald, for five minutes.

Director, thanks for being here this morning. Appreciate it. Um, I think one of the concerns that many members have is uh now that we've kinda watched the actions that you've taken to clean up the CFPB complete disaster, um, that they often relied on kind of vague statutory authority, regulation by enforcement, um, and these large expanse of interpretations of the powers instead of actually having some clear um, rules and and limits uh in place. So uh I think m- m- my concern is moving forward that restoring kind of the legal clarity and the procedural fairness, it means not only kind of defining the CFPB's authorities more clearly, it also means making sure that they were within the proper jurisdiction, right? So uh I have a bill, uh toot my own horn here, but restoring court authority over litigation act Uh, it reflects that the principles by clarifying that conduct of attorneys in litigation is regulated by the courts and not the CFPB. I mean, it seems it seems very obvious, I think, when you look at it from the perspective of the actions that you guys have already taken to fix things over there. Um, but just just one question then. How important is it for Congress to establish kind of the clear jurisdictional boundaries So that in the future, I'm wor- I'm worried about the future, I'm worried about us sliding back to this onerous, ridiculous agency. Um, we've gotta do something to put something a little bit more clear when it comes to enforcement authority and and effectively so you can regulate the practice of law outside of the judicial system. So I'm just wondering kind of your overall comments on on that topic.

I think clear boundaries need to be set by Congress to ensure that in a f- a future administration, the CFPB can't grow and be in the novel statutory theory space, which is one of the main areas that it was doing with regard to its enforcement activities.

Yeah, and so you w as you work through this, um, again, which I say I appreciate somebody's cleaning up this mess, but as you work through this, I think it would be something at least to keep in mind that in the future, um, that Congress have at least some direction on, here's the things we need to do to make sure that this doesn't happen again. So, and with that I yield, I yield back, Chairman.

Chairman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas. Miss Garcia, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having to step out, but I've been dealing with issues related to an ICE shooting. uh in my district last week in Houston. Uh so actor director acting director Voigt, you have sent out a letter um notices to members of your staff uh at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau directing them to either relocate to DC or lose their jobs. They have until July twenty first next week to decide. How many bureau employees do you currently have?

We have ten seventy one, interestingly enough.

Ten seventy one. And how many employees can be accommodated in your new headquarters?

Uh, about five hundred.

So do you expect to have two or three people on top of each other, or how are you gonna accommodate ten seventy one in a space that holds roughly two five hundred and fifty?

Well there may be some rotational um uh assignments as to uh how the um space is allocated but to answer your question i think more fundamentally uh we have put that on pause to wait for the senate to confirm hopefully the nominee so that they can make that determination it will also come in conjunction with the court proceedings with regard to our reductions in force

is that is that something you're acting on as acting director of cfpb or was said your hat as um head of onb

purely acting director of of cfpb

Sir, it seems to me, you know, I don't see how you can wear two hats, um, and separate some of these issues, but so roughly half of your employees may not be able to be accommodated in the new headquarters. How many have responded to your letter?

Well, we've had a number of requests to have an exemption to the policy. Uh, some of them have good ideas. If you're working on a litigation in Denver, we're not gonna ask you to come back to to DC,

The question was how many have responded to your letter.

but Off the top of my head I don't know, but

And I know you I know you were telling me you put put a pause, but obviously some people may have still responded to your letter.

And we have those uh in place and we certainly can provide that in a QFR.

The question is how many people have responded to your letter.

I said I don't know off the top of my head and I'm happy to provide that in a QFR.

Well because it seems clear to me that between this and the halt of certain enforcement activity regulation and guidance rollbacks employee administratively even the overall significant reduction in size of the workforce You and and the White House are trying to close the only government agency intended to protect our consumers. And I disagree that the these this bureau was a disaster. It's not a disaster, it is a lifeline. It is a lifeline for our seniors, our veterans, and people that have been s- that often are scammed, either personally in writing and more importantly now through the internet and through uh emails. So Director Voigt, a recent semi-annual report published by the CFPB found that women and employees of color remain underrepresented in key roles like economists and examiners the recent actions taken at CFPB including leadership changes, high-end freezes and rollbacks of DEI initiatives are hol only as expirating this. How do you respond to these concerns?

We believe that our employees should be there on the basis of merit and we have a

So you think that people of color have no merit?

employee process. No, I said that we have a a an a a employee process of hiring that is based on merit, and ensuring that everyone, uh, regardless of who they are, have an opportunity to come and work at CFPB.

OK, and again,

You don't subscribe to TTI policies.

do you do you have do you have any evidence or to convince me that the decisions that you're making at the bureau are really about things that are the better f are good for the protection of the consumer rights of our citizens around the country and not solely influenced by you as O and B director

sorry i'm not sure what you're getting at i i take my

well again sir you were to ask

ok

when when you make your statements that about the staffing issues are you speaking as a CFPB director or are you speaking as O and B director

yes the CFPB FTE level was bloated director increased enforcement by a hundred FTEs nearly sixty percent

but the question is not about bloating sir the question was about reductions reductions In the scope of work conducted in the workforce.

Like I said, Director Chopra increased the DFTEs in enforcement alone by a hundred.

Hey, have you transferred any of the the bureau's work, roles, responsibilities, mission, any of it to any other agency in in in the government?

No, we were in under uh discussions when it was clear we may go to operating at zero level because of the way the law was written, in their ability to take a draw.

So nothing has been transferred.

Generalman's time has expired. The general lady from California has the unanimous consent request.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous uh consent to enter into the hearing record seven letters I have sent to the witness uh that have gone unanswered. Um

Without objection, they'll be included in the record.

Thank you. I would also ask consent to enter into the record statements and letters from dozens of organizations in strong support of the CFPB, as well as those that highlight all the ways our witnesses our witness has

Yeah.

unlawfully undermined the agency's ability to protect consumers, including from American financial reform, better markets, consumer, Federation of America, consumer action, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and many other organizations, including state and local groups across the country.

Without objection, they'll all be made part of the record. The chair now recognizes the chairman of our uh commi subcommittee on housing and insurance. Mister Flood, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Acting Director Vogt, thank you for being here today. I had a lot of disagreements with your predecessor, Director Chopra. Among them was Director Chopra's tendency to expand the CFPB's jurisdictional reach at every turn. For example, the CFPB issued a rulemaking in late twenty twenty four defining digital consumer payment technology entities as, quote unquote, larger participants and therefore subject to CFPB supervision. I led a Congressional Review Act resolution overturning that move, and I'm proud to say that it was signed by President Trump into law in May of twenty twenty five. That move was one of many that the former director made to try and expand his own authority his own agency's reach and the bureaucracy of the CFPB. By contrast, during this administration, the CFPB released proposals indicating they may redefine what constitutes a larger participant in several non-bank financial markets. I appreciate that CFPB is doing thoughtful work on which entities truly deserve to fall within their remit rather than instinctually pushing to expand its own authority. In most other areas of federal law, agencies evaluating market participants generally begin with a clearly defined relevant p- product market before determining whether a firm possesses sufficient market share to warrant heightened regulatory scrutiny. This is one of the issues that we uh attempt to address in a draft CFPB comprehensive reform package. Acting Director Vogt, do you believe the CFPB's large market participant framework should seek to more precisely define relevant markets and ensure that only firms with a significant share of those markets are subject to heightened supervision?

Yes, and I would encourage Congress to actually do the work to put it in the statute. I think the your hard work on that CRA indicates the the degree of skepticism, but I think that CFPB can do it well, and I would certainly appreciate additional guidance from Congress.

Thank you. Next I'd like to uh run through some of the reforms proposed by the Chairman of this committee, uh to right size the agency. Director Vogt, do you believe that the CFPB would receive better oversight if it were funded through the regular appropriations process?

A hundred percent.

Acting Director Vogt, do you believe the CFPB would generally undertake better, more defensible rulemaking if the Bureau's statutory cost-benefit analysis requirements were strengthened?

Yes.

Acting Director Vogt, do you believe that the CFPB should have an independent Inspector General, just like almost every other federal agency?

Yes.

Acting Director Vogt, do you believe as the draft legislation calls for that there should be a rulemaking more firmly defining what an abusive act or practice is, in order to provide greater clarity to market players on what rules they must abide by.

Well, it's certainly a possible possibility to do it as a regulation. I would prefer Congress to spell it out more clearly.

Acting Director Vo, do you believe the CFPB should be able to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in unallocated balances in their civil penalty fund to be used as a slush fund or do you believe those funds should be transferred back to the treasury once the victims of any wrongdoing are paid?

Once the victims of of wrongdoing, but I also think that there's a a role for there to be some balance to insure that you have the fund to be able to pay when a particular entity has no more money, and to be able to provide redress in that instance. So in terms of the timing, I'd wanna look carefully on that.

Thank you for your answers, Acting Director Vogt. I appreciate your time today and believe that together we can move towards a CFPB that is more accountable in the future and uh appreciate your service to our country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Flood yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member of our subcommittee on oversight and investigations Mr. Green of Texas she'll recognize for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I thank the witness for appearing today. Uh, mister Vogt, I'm reviewing your web site and there's an indication that you will receive complaints and if another agency is better suited to assist, you will send those complaints to this other agency. Is this a fair statement?

I think that's fair.

Alright. And um, do you maintain records on the complaints that you received, sir?

We re we maintain all the records of the consumer portal. Uh, we're taking great steps to rationalize them.

I'll take that as a yes. And uh, in so doing, um, if you received a complaint about a Ponzi scheme, you would send that complaint to the appropriate agency?

If we did not have statutory authority, yes.

Okay. Well, let's just review what a Ponzi scheme is quickly. A Ponzi scheme, according to Wikinvestopedia, is a fraudulent investment scam that pays returns to earlier investors using capital collected from new investors, rather than from any actual business profit, named after nineteen twenties swindler, Charles Ponzi. The scheme creates a false illusion of a highly profitable enterprise, to continuously lure in fresh capital. A Ponzi scheme. Let's talk about a Ponzi scheme that has made the news as of late. Over a one year period, President Trump's dollar sign Trump pump and dump meme coin has averaged about one point seven million dollars in profits per day, one point seven four million in profits per day. Over that same period of time, investors lost a combined three point eight billion dollars, three point eight billion. Uh, this kind of Ponzi scheme, uh, has been reported to you, can you give me, at some point, the number of complaints you've received about the President of the United States of America and his Ponzi scheme?

Congressman, I'm not gonna speak to the President's investments, other than to say this administration has had the highest

Without going into his investment. I wanna know about complaints that you've received. You said you received the complaints. Can you just give me information about the complaints you've received? That that is public information, isn't it?

I don't have that at the my fingertips on how to respond to QFRs.

I know you don't have it at your fingertips. The question is, will you give it to me now, that i- that is unreasonable.

I said I'm happy to respond to QFRs on on on all matters.

OK, well I don't know what response means. Is that a yes, you'll give me the complaints? You'll let me know the number?

I don't know what you're referring to, so I'm happy to look.

I'm referring to complaints about the problem. President of the United States of America, who made one point seven four million dollars per day, while other persons were losing billions of dollars, three point eight billion over the same period of time that he was making one point seven four million per day. I'd like to know the number of complaints that you've received as they relate to, let's take out the term President, as they relate to Donald John Trump.

I said I would ref- I would respond to any of the QFRs that you might have. When I don't have the information in front of me.

Uh, uh, that would be unreasonable. I would not expect you to have it in front of you, sir. Now, before I clu conclude, I wanna associate myself with the statements of the ranking member and also Mister Vargas I heard his statements uh and um I conclude with this. Um, Charles um, Charles s- I I wanna call him swindle, but uh swindler, but he was a predatory person. who engaged in a Ponzi scheme. He's the first person who originated this whole concept of a Ponzi scheme, Charles Ponzi. Uh, the president, uh, dear sir, appears to be a person who has somehow legitimized a Ponzi scheme that would be called swindling in a righteous world. I can but only conclude that the president of the United States, in doing what he's doing to persons by pumping and dumping his Ponzi scheme meme coin, he's he's engaging in a swindle. And it it does not um in any way bring me joy to tell you that we have a swindler as a president. So now if you receive these these um complaints about the swindler, I assume that you will take appropriate action and uh that you'll at least send me information concerning the number of complaints. But more than that, it would seem to me that this would be the kind of thing you would be interested in, uh, investigating, if the President of the United States is engaged in a Ponzi scheme. Uh, would you n- would you concur with the chairman's

Gentleman's time has expired.

Mister President.

Thank you.

Mister

Mister Chairman.

Just just moment.

Mister Chairman, I see great

Just

I hear back.

Just mister, uh, the time belongs to the chairman right this moment. I haven't recognized anybody. That gentleman's time has expired. And as I've done once before today, I wanna remind all members of the committee to observe the principles of decorum and courtesy and debate in the House of Representatives, and its committees. And once again, remind members on both sides of the aisle to direct their remarks to the chair, and do not speak unless properly recognized, and avoid engaging in personalities or impugning the motives of another member, or of the president. With that, uh, I recognize the gentleman from California.

Oh, thank you very much. Um, Mister Chairman, Mister Votes, testimony has been completely inadequate to say the least. This is the first and likely only time Mr. Vogt may testify before this committee, uh this Congress, despite being required by law to do so biannually. As a result, members of this committee are being deprived of the ability to examine the significant administrative, budgetary, regulatory, and enforcement changes. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has implemented under the leadership of acting director Vogt, so pursuant to clause two J one of rule eleven of the rules of the House, and clause D J D five of rule three of the rules of the Committee on Financial Services, I and every democratic member of the committee unanimously request to call additional witnesses selected by committed democrats to testify uh in continuation of today's hearing. Also known as minority day hearing. Continuing this hearing with the second panel will provide members of the committee and the American public the opportunity to examine the activities of the consumer, Financial Protection Bureau, under the leadership of acting director Vogt and their impact on consumer protection and the American financial system. I also request unanimous consent to enter our minority day hearing request letter into the record.

Uh, thanks, uh, gentlewoman. Your, uh, letter will be entered in the record by unanimous consent, and I appreciate your request, uh, on holding a minority day hearing. The committee will review this request pursuant to clause two JL uh, J one of house rule eleven and committee rule three D five and will work the ranking member to determine a date for that requested hearing. We'll now proceed and the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mister Herodotus,

Mister Chairman.

for three minutes.

I see, great.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

OK, alright.

Thank you very much. And first before, first of all, thank you very much for your service. I know how dedicated you are to looking out for the taxpayer first, and it is, it's a welcome uh change we've seen from in the past. I also wanna say express my disappointment in some of the unprofessional comments made towards you today. Uh every time you come here you always hand yourself a class in digging, I I very much appreciate that. I think we need to elevate the con uh the conversation in Congress and and you've done that today. Uh I also wanna remind people that the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration, HUD, the Department of Justice, the SEC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and every State Attorney General has the ability to look out for the consumer It's not just this one agency that you happen to chair at this point. And I I think that should be recognized. Also, some of the comments made today about fraud. This is a welcome conversation. I think that uh I heard saw today in the Senate that there is a hearing on fraud, and not one member of the other side of the aisle showed up to the meeting. And everyone is seeing these incredible reports about fraud in, whether it be Minnesota, in California, where people are are clearly just stealing money from the government. And and some people just choose to turn a blind eye, and it's shocking considering some of the allegations that have been made today. And so I I I've heard some of the dis disappointing comments today, so I I'd I'd like to give you a little bit of time, uh as we conclude today, to address some of the things that you still wanna address uh before you conclude your testimony today.

No, we're uh thanks for the comment. Um it's one of the approaches that we've tried to take with regard to uh utilizing the tools that the cfpb is to recognize that we're not the only cop on the beat uh and to take our our responsibilities seriously but also to work with our other regulators to figure out who's the best person uh who's the best agency with regard to congressional intent and that's how we've designed our priorities

and with that mr. chairman i wanna also applaud your efforts today to keep this as even as we can today i appreciate that and again i i hope we can elevate the conversation because this is what really makes congress a special place where we all serve and have the honor to serve and I hope we can elevate the conversation as we move forward. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I wanna thank the Acting Director Vogt for his testimony today.

Mr.

You are just missing, thank you for being with us.

Mr. Chairman, I seek I seek recognition.

Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to

Mr. Chairman,

submit additional written questions for the chair.

I seek recognition.

Question will be forwarded to the witness for his response. Acting Director Vogt, please respond no later than August nineteenth, twenty twenty six. Uh, will me recognize the ranking member?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, that, Frank, requires that the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau testifies semi-annually, meaning this should be at least the third time Mister Vogt testifies before this committee. Yet, contrary to the law, Mister Vogt has successfully avoided accountability despite trying to gut the Bureau's ability to go after bad actors and rolling bad consumer t protections like those related uh to medical debt, student loans, overdrive protections, and veterans. To make matters worse, Mister Vogt's testimony today is restricted to just three hours, denying members of both parties and the Americans they represent to hold him and our government accountable. So, pursuant to clause two M of rule uh one one and clause two k six of house rule one one, I move that this committee issue a subpoena to compel the appearance of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau um, acting director, Russell Vogt, to ensure uh, that his testimony before this committee, again this Congress, so that that he testify, his testimony should come before this committee, again this Congress, so that we may do the job the American people sent us to do.

The gentleman has moved to authorize a subpoena. For what purpose does the gentleman from uh Georgia seek recognition?

Sure. Move to table the motion.

The gentleman has moved to table the motion.

I appeal to the ruling of the chair and request the yeas and nays.

The motion is not debatable and the question now occurs on the motion to table. Those in favor shall signify by saying aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay.

Nay.

Nay.

I appeal to the ruling of the chair

The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Recorded vote, recorded voted vote, request a recorded vote.

I request a recorded vote.

The ranking member requests a recorded vote, a recorded vote. Killed it.

He he's a missed.

May I ask if the clerk is prepared to open the vote?

Yeah.

Just a moment, very good. We're waiting for the screen. Little patience, thank you.

We are here.

oh on the table

on the table do you wanna put it on the table

oh really ok

i know you're gonna grab your own plates

yeah that's really nice

they well they they actually have one

Mister Quirk, are you prepared to open the vote? Uh, the Quirk will open the vote. Members will vote electronically. This is a motion to table.

The first two are done. yeah yeah

aim aim down here towards us yeah there you go you you got it recorded

right this one ok no vote

table is up

this is a motion to table uh mrs. water's subpoena resolution What is the third one? What is the fourth one? What is the fifth one? What is the sixth one? What is the sixth one? What is the sixth one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? What is the seventh one? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report.

One more.

One more. Stand by.

One more.

Just one more.

One more. And uh what play? One more. One more. One more.

Clerk will close the vote and report. Clerk will close the vote and report.

One more. One more. One more. Where are those? One more. One more.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are twenty-four and the nays are thirteen.

Oh.

The ayes have it, the motion to table is agreed to.

ok thank you

the hearing is adjourned

keep it in mind

thank you very much

thank you ma'am