Renovation cost offers another tool in fight to limit agency’s power.
WASHINGTON – As they prepared to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in early 2011, Obama administration officials settled on its permanent headquarters: a vacant government building a block from the White House.
They planned to turn the former home of the defunct Office of Thrift Supervision into a showplace befitting the first new federal agency created in decades to focus specifically on protecting American consumers.
The 35-year-old building would be renovated to include a state-of-the-art public lobby with interactive kiosks and 21st-century learning centers, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., then a White House aide who headed the consumer bureau’s organizing, said at the time.
But nearly three years later, the bureau’s seven-story home remains just another drab concrete-and-glass Washington office building — stuck in the mid-20th century. A handful of posters amid large plants in the lobby tout the bureau’s mission and vision. Outside, two simple green-and-white signs feature the agency’s name and logo.
The $95 million cost of the renovation has become the latest rallying cry for Republicans still trying to restrict the bureau’s power and alter its structure under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that created it.
“This is simply an egregious example of waste and Washington bureaucrats living a life much different from an average American,” Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., said of the renovation costs. “It shows a complete disregard for the taxpayer.”
Republicans have long chafed at Dodd-Frank, which nearly all of them opposed. The law left Congress with little say over the functioning of the powerful new bureau, which is funded through the Federal Reserve and does not have to go through the appropriations process.
Richard Cordray, the bureau’s director, defended the headquarters renovation as “a significant one-time investment.”
“It’s not like we’re building some palace for the CFPB over the long term,” he told senators at a mid-November committee hearing. Noting that the bureau does not own the building, Cordray said: “I would rather not spend a penny on it.”
But the electrical, ventilation and other systems need to be updated, he said. And the bureau, which moved into the building two years ago, still is trying to figure out what restrictions might come from a review of the structure’s historic significance.
“It’s been a frustrating process for me,” Cordray said. “It’s taken longer to get to understanding it than I would have liked.”
Republicans have focused much of their anger over the law on the bureau’s structure and spending, complaining that it is too powerful and lacks proper oversight. They blocked Cordray’s confirmation for months, for instance, before Obama installed him using a controversial recess appointment in early 2012.
Last week, over Democratic opposition, McHenry and his Republican colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee pushed through several bills that would change the bureau’s structure and powers. They include subjecting the bureau’s funding to congressional approval and replacing the single director with a bipartisan commission.
Democrats oppose the changes. They said other banking regulators are funded outside the appropriations process, which prevents Congress from starving them of money at the behest of industry lobbyists.
The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank that advocates cooperation and compromise to solve problems, released a broad analysis of the bureau this fall and supported its independent funding stream.