Toomey: CFPB Returning to Lawless, Anti-Business, Unaccountable Agency
Washington, D.C. – In his opening statement at today’s U.S. Senate Banking Committee hearing, Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said that the Biden administration has rushed to return the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to the lawless, anti-business, unaccountable agency that it was under the Obama administration.
Senator
Toomey also criticized Director Rohit Chopra for his refusal to respond to the
Committee’s request for information about an alleged purge of civil servants at
the CFPB, calling Director Chopra’s stonewalling of legitimate congressional
oversight requests “simply unacceptable.” In July, all Republican members of
the Senate Banking Committee sent a letter
criticizing Chopra for his lack of compliance, claiming it should disqualify
him from consideration as CFPB Director.
Ranking
Member Toomey’s remarks, as prepared for delivery:
Mr.
Chairman, thank you. Welcome, Director Chopra.
During
the Obama administration, the CFPB was a lawless, anti-business, unaccountable
agency. Through restrictive policies, it limited consumer choice, drove up the
cost of credit, and heedlessly harassed employers. Unfortunately, the Biden
administration has rushed to return the CFPB to its bad old ways.
In
less than ten months, the Biden CFPB has disregarded its jurisdictional limits,
rescinded policies that provided regulatory clarity, returned to regulating by
enforcement actions rather than rules, reportedly pushed out career civil
servants for political reasons, and refused to comply with congressional
oversight.
Let’s
consider the Biden CFPB’s return to regulation by enforcement. This unfair
practice occurs when agencies fail to set clear rules of the road before
bringing enforcement actions.
A
classic example is with the Dodd-Frank Act. Dodd-Frank prohibited providers of
consumer financial products from engaging in “abusive” acts or practices.
However, the law’s definition of this new term is so vague it’s not clear what
it prohibits.
During
the CFPB’s entire existence, it has never bothered to issue a rule to clarify
this definition. But that didn’t stop the Obama CFPB from bringing enforcement
actions accusing businesses of abusive conduct and pressuring them into
settling.
The
Trump CFPB issued a sensible policy to curb this practice. The Biden CFPB,
however, quickly rescinded this policy and took no steps to provide regulatory
clarity.
Instead,
in just his second week on the job, Director Chopra brought and settled an
enforcement action against a company for abusive conduct even though the CPFB
has never defined that term. Worse yet, CFPB relied on a novel theory of
abusive conduct. CFPB alleged an “abuse of market dominance” – a foreign
concept taken from European antitrust legal theories, not American consumer
laws.
The
Biden CFPB has also repeatedly exceeded the bounds of its statutory authority
by acting outside of its jurisdiction. Take for example the CFPB’s overreach
into housing rentals and landlord-tenant law in effort to advance the Biden
administration’s unlawful CDC eviction moratorium.
In
May, the CFPB and the FTC, where Mr. Chopra was serving as a commissioner,
jointly sent threatening letters to large landlords about the moratorium. The
problem is housing rentals and landlord-tenant law are completely outside of
the CFPB’s jurisdiction.
By
statute, the CFPB’s jurisdiction is limited to overseeing “consumer financial
products and services,” which do not include housing rentals, and enforcing
certain enumerated consumer laws, none of which govern landlord-tenant
relationships.
In
its notice to landlords, the CFPB even seemed to begrudgingly acknowledge its
lack of jurisdiction, but that didn’t stop the CFPB from threatening them with
potential legal action. The letters stated: “Neither the FTC nor the CFPB has
determined whether you or your company is violating the law … the FTC or CFPB
may still take action based on law violations.”
It is deeply troubling that the CFPB made these threats when it had no legal
authority to follow through on them because housing rentals and landlord-tenant
law are outside of its jurisdiction.
The
Biden CFPB has also refused to comply with legitimate congressional oversight
requests. According to press reports, the Biden CFPB has taken unusual and
possibly unlawful actions to push out career civil servants in order to replace
them with political loyalists.
In
June, I sent the CFPB a letter seeking documents about these allegations. For
five months, the CFPB has sought to evade this legitimate oversight request.
In
June, the CFPB claimed it needed more time to respond. Then, in July, instead
of providing records, the CFPB claimed that the Privacy Act prevented it from
producing any of the requested records.
After
my staff challenged this claim, the CFPB finally produced some heavily redacted
records this month. Despite the heavy redactions, at least one document refers
to a “Voluntary Separation Compensation Agreement,” which sounds like reports
that CFPB civil servants were offered extraordinary separation incentives to
leave their posts.
From
the redactions to delay tactics, it makes one wonder: What does the CFPB have
to hide? In fact, I could ask the same question about you, Director Chopra.
In
June, while your nomination was pending, I sent you a letter about the reports
of troubling personnel actions at CFPB. My letter asked simple questions about
whether you were involved in—or aware of—these actions. You refused to answer
these questions or respond at all.
As
a result, in July, every Republican member of this committee sent you a letter
calling on you to answer these questions. But you still refused to provide
answers or respond. That’s simply unacceptable.
Let
me closing by saying: You’ve been CFPB Director for less than a month. There’s
still time for you to reverse course.
Some
good places to start would be to end the CFPB’s unfair practice of
regulation-by-enforcement, respect the CFPB’s jurisdictional limits, and
stop stonewalling legitimate congressional oversight requests. I hope you
will, but I won’t hold my breath."
###
Next Article Previous Article