Home > Personal Finance > CFPB Hearing: House Panel Civil, But Still Testy

Comments 0 Comments

Consumers who tuned into Thursday’s hearing of the Congressional Oversight Committee may not have recognized what they were seeing. An earlier hearing, in May, about the government’s new watchdog agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, descended into a bunch of hotheaded yelling and accusations of lying, garnering quite a lot of press for a committee that is usually mostly ignored.

Well, the latest hearing seemed tailor-made to push the committee back into its customary sleepiness. Both sides admitted that they went a tad over-the-top during their earlier engagement.

“I think it’s proper to ask if we are maintaining the proper decorum and respect,” said Mike Quigley (D-IL). “I would respectfully submit that both sides have pushed the envelope on that.”

For her part, Elizabeth Warren, the president’s special advisor charged with creating the new agency, conceded that her refusal to stick around for a few extra minutes of questioning last time was a pretty serious political gaffe.

“I’ve cleared my schedule and I’m here for as long as you need me,” she said.

[Related article: Consumer Protection Fight Erupts Into Allegations of Lying]

But that still left plenty of time for posturing, gamesmanship and downright nastiness, as Republicans and Warren parried over the proper role of the new bureau, which opens its doors on July 21. Many members of the committee raised concerns about the bureau’s power to ban products it deems “abusive” to consumers.

“How do you distinguish between abusive and non-abusive products and services?” asked Dennis Ross (R-FL).

Warren said her agency has not yet figured out what the criteria should be to determine which financial products should be banned, if any. That succeeded only in making Ross more flustered.

“That’s a large and important power, to ban an entire type of product. Don’t you think that’s something you and your team should be addressing?” Ross said.

Other Republicans challenged Warren on why the new bureau is even necessary at all.

“We keep hearing about illegal financial products,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC). “If these products are in fact illegal, as a former prosecutor I want to know why you haven’t informed federal prosecutors about these illegal activities so that they can pursue these cases. Why do we even need your agency if these things are already illegal?”

As tensions grew, veteran Congressmen urged newcomers like Gowdy to take it easy.

“Congress is viewed as dysfunctional, and I would submit that this committee is dysfunctional, and this hearing is part of the reason why,” said Rep. Tim Cooper (D-TN). “This is a partisan food fight, and it doesn’t have to be this way.”

Other Democrats on the committee took the opportunity of Warren’s second hearing in as many months to blast Republicans for focusing so much attention on her and the new bureau.

“We have not brought the mortgage servicers in even one time to speak,” said Rep. Danny Davis (D-IN) “It seems pretty obvious that our priorities are somewhat backwards.”

Meanwhile, Republicans continued to raise questions about Warren’s role in the ongoing negotiations between mortgage loan servicers and the 50 state attorneys general on proposed new reforms for the industry. Republicans allege that Warren is overstepping her authority and continuing to lobby for her own version of a settlement.

Warren responded, as she has for months, that she only gave her advice when asked for it by Iowa Attorney General Tim Miller, who is leading the investigation, and that her involvement does not violate any rules.

Image: Mike Renlund, via Flickr

[Related article: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ready or Not: We’re Coming]

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team