Patrick McHenryChairman

Washington, December 14, 2021 -

Today, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, led by Patrick McHenry (NC-10), opened an investigation into the unprecedented, attempted power grab by Democrats on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) Board of Directors, including Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra, acting head of the Office of Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu, and FDIC Board Member Martin Gruenberg. In a letter to Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (CA-43), all Committee Republicans demanded Democrats join their investigation into the attempted politicization of the FDIC Board and hold an oversight hearing on the matter.

Additionally, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), the top Republican on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Tom Emmer (MN-06), and the top Republican on the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03), sent a letter to CFPB Director Chopra, who led the unlawful attempt to seize power from the current FDIC Chair, instructing him to preserve all documents and communications related to his partisan attempt to co-opt the FDIC Board of Directors.

Read Committee Republicans’ letter to Chair Waters here.

Read Excerpts from Committee letter to Chair Waters:

“Dear Chairwoman Waters:

“On December 9, 2021, two members of the Board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a confusing joint statement that implied the Board voted to approve a Request for Information and Comment on the bank merger process.  The statement—which was released by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—also purported to instruct the FDIC Executive Secretary ‘to record the vote in the minutes of the proceedings of the Board’ and ‘transmit the Request for Information to the Federal Register.’  Of course, the FDIC took no such vote, and the joint statement and the extracurricular activities to which it refers have no legal effect. To fully understand how the Director of the CFPB, Rohit Chopra, and an FDIC Director who has somehow served on the Board since 2005, Martin Gruenberg, coordinated an attempt to usurp the Chairman, we request you convene a hearing as soon as practicable.

…

“The joint statement you cited now exposes the FDIC’s Bank Merger Act reform process to litigation, particularly if the agency considers any comments submitted in response to the legally deficient solicitation. Among many other things, your attempt to create an imprimatur of legitimacy with respect to the request for information only served to cause further confusion. Your decision to ratify the Biden Administration’s partisan attempt to co-opt the FDIC is, unfortunately consistent with your posture towards oversight in the 117th Congress. Since January 20, 2021, you have issued 18 statements to “applaud” various actions by the Biden Administration.  Meanwhile, you have not initiated a single investigation of any agency within the Committee’s jurisdiction, despite what appears to be a pattern of politicization of independent regulatory agencies including the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Federal Trade Commission, the CFPB, and now the FDIC.

“To forestall further damage to the FDIC and to the Committee’s role as the committee of legislative and investigative jurisdiction in the House of Representatives for issues related to banks and banking, including deposit insurance, the hearing should be held as soon as practicable, and should include Director Chopra, Director Gruenberg, and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michal Hsu as witnesses.”

Read the letter to CFPB Director Chopra here.

Read excerpts from the letter to the CFPB Director Chopra:

“Dear Director Chopra:

“On December 9, 2021, you issued a confusing joint statement with Rohit Chopra that implied the Board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) voted to approve a Request for Information and Comment on the bank merger process. The statement—which was released by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—also purported to instruct the FDIC Executive Secretary ‘to record the vote in the minutes of the proceedings of the Board’ and ‘transmit the Request for Information to the Federal Register.’ Of course, the FDIC took no such vote, and your joint statement and the extracurricular activities to which it refers have no legal effect.

…

The FDIC’s official statement makes clear your attempt to bypass the Chairman and set the agency’s agenda is illegitimate. That conclusion is supported by the FDIC’s bylaws, which require special meetings requested by any two members of the Board to be called by the Executive Secretary.  Your joint statement made no reference to whether or how notice was circulated to Board members, if at all. Indeed, the Board met today and took no action with respect to the Request for Information and Comment (RFI) on the bank merger process, and your motion to include the RFI vote in a summary of today’s agenda was ruled out of order due to procedural deficiencies. Moreover, the RFI has not been transmitted to the Federal Register, presumably because the process by which the RFI was authorized is invalid.    

…

“This action, however reckless and ill-conceived, was certainly the product of deliberations between you and those who organized and participated in the sham vote and joint statement. Considering the FDIC itself considers the vote invalid and the joint statement about the vote was issued by the CFPB, it appears the process for planning and executing this end run around the Chairman may have occurred via communications that occurred outside the FDIC’s systems and may therefore be unavailable from the FDIC.

“It is therefore necessary that you preserve all relevant documents and communications that may refer or relate to the actions in question, including those on official governmental accounts and/or personal, non-governmental accounts.

“Specifically, this preservation request should be construed as an instruction to preserve all documents, communications, and other information, including electronic information and metadata, that is or may be potentially responsive to a congressional inquiry, request, investigation, or subpoena that may be initiated or otherwise undertaken by a committee of Congress or any other investigative entity.”

###