of interest. it's job is pretty simple protect americans from the might of big business the job of the consumer protection bureau of the united states is to make sure that the products americans purchase are safe and to make sure they don't buy into false advertising the f.t.c. was given the power to investigate and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices so meet the man whose job it is to protect american consumers from dangerous products he was just appointed by the trumpet ministration his name andrew smith now anderson with knows quite a bit about corporations who get dragged into court for harming the public why does he know all about it well he's been representing those corporations for most of his life as a corporate lawyer in fact the two most high profile cases facebook and equifax are both his former clients now that little fact did not go unnoticed. instead of demanding accountability the f.t.c. puts equifax is hired gun in charge of the bureau that's supposed to protect consumers this is corruption plain and simple he's on the wrong side of these issues i can imagine worse choices

of interest. it's job is pretty simple protect americans from the might of big business the job of the consumer protection bureau of the united states is to make sure that the products americans purchase are safe and to make sure they don't buy into false advertising the f.t.c. was given the power to investigate and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices so meet the man whose job it is to protect american consumers from dangerous products he was just appointed by the trumpet ministration his name andrew smith now anderson with knows quite a bit about corporations who get dragged into court for harming the public why does he know all about it well he's been representing those corporations for most of his life as a corporate lawyer in fact the two most high profile cases facebook and equifax are both his former clients now that little fact did not go unnoticed. instead of demanding accountability the f.t.c. puts equifax is hired gun in charge of the bureau that's supposed to protect consumers this is corruption plain and simple he's on the wrong side of these issues i can't imagine words choice

nobody on board of that plane died there could have been so much worse from the american consumers might be facing a tricky time ahead the new chief of the u.s. consumer protection bureau. he was till recently actually only other side of the tracks using his legal expertise to defend big business he represented facebook and consumer credit rating agencies equifax before taking up the position now as kind of open reports next and there. may be a possible conflict of interest its job is pretty simple protect americans from the might of big business the job of the consumer protection bureau of the united states is to make sure that the products americans purchase are safe and to make sure they don't buy into false advertising the f.t.c. was given the power to investigate and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices so meet the man whose job it is to protect american consumers from dangerous products he was just appointed by the trumpet ministration his name andrew smith now anderson it knows quite a bit about corporations who get dragged into court for harming the public why does he know all about it well he's been representing those corporations for mos

of interest. it's job is pretty simple protect americans from the might of big business the job of the consumer protection bureau of the united states is to make sure that the products americans purchase are safe and to make sure they don't buy into false advertising the f.t.c. was given the power to investigate and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices so meet the man whose job it is to protect american consumers from dangerous products he was just appointed by the trumpet ministration his name andrew smith now anderson with knows quite a bit about corporations who get dragged into court for harming the public why does he know all about it well he's been representing those corporations for most of his life as a corporate lawyer in fact the two most high profile cases facebook and equifax are both his former clients now that little fact did not go unnoticed instead of demanding accountability the f.t.c. the fox hired gun in charge of the bureau that's supposed to protect consumers this is corruption plain and simple he's on the wrong side of these issues i can imagine worse choices but not m

puts equifax is hired gun in charge of the bureau that's supposed to protect consumers this is corruption plain and simple he's on the wrong side of these issues i can't imagine worse choices but not money so an activist group calling itself public citizen filed a request under the freedom of information act to find out if there were any potential conflicts of interest in relation to andrew smith consumers deserve a consumer protection advocate the miss position not a hired gun for corporate sharks they were provided with documents over four hundred ninety five pages on the new consumer protection sheet and potential conflicts and cronyism associated with them however almost all of it was blacked out nearly every page was redacted so no information was exposed there so no new evidence about alleged conflicts of interest that certainly doesn't ease the doubts this is andrew smith in twenty eighteen my name is andrew smith and i'm the director of the bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission were dedicated to pursuing law enforcement actions to stop unlawful practices in

rector of the bureau of consumer protection at the federal trade commission were dedicated to pursuing law enforcement actions to stop unlawful practices including fraud against consumers but this is andrew smith less than a year ago representing equifax a company investigated by the f.t.c. for a massive data breach my name is andrew smith and i'm a partner in the law firm of covington and burling i'm appearing today on behalf of the consumer data industry association. members include the three national credit bureaus equifax experian and trans union we have the mr smith a twenty eight team heading the watchdog that is still probing the corporation that he defended in twenty seventeen a clear example of the revolving door between the federal government and its trade secrets cable company r.t. new york. a passenger jet overshot the runway and caught fire in southern russia in the early hours of saturday leaving eighteen people injured including three children the boeing plane operated by you tear airlines was unable to land for more than half an hour due to adverse weather conditions at

of a possible conflict. trist its job is pretty simple protect americans from the might of big business the job of the consumer protection bureau of the united states is to make sure that the products americans purchase are safe and to make sure they don't buy into false advertising the f.t.c. was given the power to investigate and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices so meet the man whose job it is to protect american consumers from dangerous products he was just appointed by the trumpet ministration his name andrew smith now anderson is knows quite a bit about corporations who get dragged into court for harming the public why does he know all about it well he's been representing those corporations for most of his life as a corporate lawyer in fact the two most high profile cases facebook and equifax are both his former clients now that little fact did not go unnoticed. instead of demanding accountability the f.t.c. puts equifax is hired gun in charge of the bhutto that's supposed to protect consumers this is could not.

the name is the bureau of consumer financial protection. rce the law, we'll start calling it what the statute calls it >> you have talked about the idea of, quote, burning down the bureau >> sure. >> why >> i did that when i was in the house. okay and you can't -- a good bureaucrat can't do that i can't legislate from the bureaucracy. it's not right, it's not constitutional if you're a lawmaker you say i want to undo that, i want to pass a bill that changes that. that's great and that's what you do when you run it, you can't get inside and say the law says this place has to exist, but i'm going to ignore the law. i have to follow the law that's what i hope bureaucrats do >> but speak to this after the financial crisis and given the political criticism after the crisis, so many people said that they weren't protected whether it was mortgages that people felt were fraudulently sold to them or even not necessarily fraudulently to them push them in ways that they felt shouldn't have been. that there should be some part of the u.s. government tha

consumer protection financial bureau. so real problems with the decision and his opinion in the dissent outside of the actual consumer protection financial bureau. >> does the sort of madness of what's happening around you get to you on capitol hill. you have the woodward book, the op-ed drops and saying the president is unfit for offers. and you are up there you know doing your constitutional duty of advising, how do you process that? >> well, first of all, you have a duty, you have a job. you focus on what you can do best. we are trying to get as many documents as we can. the white house is holding them up, shielding them. and beyond that what bothers me about what is going on right now is we should be governing from opportunity. we are at a stable moment in economy. doing things about immigration reform. and instead we are in one crisis after another. and this anonymous letter to the "new york times" this op-ed has put themselves in another crisis of their own doing. and i figure justice of a supreme court should be a ball last in turbulent times. we have to be that ballast in turbulent times. >> what do you expect tomorrow,

>>there was a now famous resignation by a person that ran the student loan section of consumer finance protection bureau a little while ago. n letter carried rate >> some is the belief i can do tore from the inside in preventing diss some of it is just sheer careerism i got a job, i got a white house car, i like it. but i think the over reason to be fair is a lot of the people are asking what good would it do? in normal times the resignation of hnkigh ng would have a huge impact. but again and ain, we'veeen as ben sassa said the bepublicans have made a bargain, willing to accepvior that is otherwise unacceptable in turn for tax cuts, regulatory form and for the wholesale revamping of the federal bench in that case, the argument may well be if i resign, it's not going to have an impact anyway. >> sreenivasan: any normal week, the big story we'd be talking about now is the third story, is the confirmation hearings you watched them for judge kavanaugh on the supreme court, what did you think >> when she was a young law professor, elana kagen called it a shar raid and boy was she confirmed, this became a pa

protections. he consistently ruled against rule making powers of independent agencies, going so far as to claibl the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau unconstitutional. and he's praised the dissents in both ro west and -- ro west and casey, two landmark cases. remember, we can't forget. brett kavanaugh was selected from a preapproved list of candidates vetted by the federalist society and the heritage foundation, two hard right groups dedicated to the destruction of our health care law and the repeal of roe v. wade. he was selected by a president who explicitly promised to pick judges who would do those two things exactly. so unlike former nominees, brett kavanaugh has a special burden to explain his views on these crucial issues. the president didn't just say i'm going to choose the best legal mind available. he said i'm going to choose someone who will repeal roe. i will choose someone who will overturn much of the health care protections that we have, as in the a.c.a. so he had this special obligation, and when i interviewed him in my office, he ducked. i asked him if he believed planned v. parenthood which affirmed roe was corre

frustration but when you compound with the protection of your where congress insulated the bureau from any oversight by congress and where they appointed the head of the consumer financial protection bureau with vast powers to get into the personal financial information of every american and get them more authority than we would ever give any of our intelligence agencies. it strikes me as a tremendous abuse of power. it is not a question that i will use the opportunity to express frustration. i know the senator as the chairman of the banking community shares that with me. in the five minutes i have left, sq softball. cameras are in the courtroom. one of the reasons why i think the confirmations hearing are painful for the nominee and their family and friends are so important because more people in america have learned about how the government should operate and does operate by watching the last two days than they have through all of their time in elementary school, junior high school and high school and college. most americans don't really study american history anymore much less civic and i think this is a wonderful opportunity. i am glad your students, your

richard corduroy served as the director of consumer financial protection bureau. >>> on capitol hillbrett kavanaugh is expected to clear his first hurdle when they vote on thursday. it comes after intense grilling by a few democrats reportedly eyeing 2020. >> how can you not remember whether or not you had a conversation about robert mueller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm? the investigation has only been going on for so long, sir. >> i'm not sure -- i'm trying to think do i know anyone who works aught that firm. >> that's not my question. my question is have you had a conversation with anyone at that firm about that investigation. >> it's a really specific person. >> i would like to know the person you're thinking of. >> i think you're thinking of someone and don't want to tell us. >> this is the closest i've been to an i am spart cuss moment. >> there is no rule, there is clearly a rule that applies. >> let's bring back julie manchester and sean sullivan. you reported on this apparent posturing. what were your take aways? >> when you look at the hearings last week

frustration but when you compound with the protection of your where congress insulated the bureau from any oversight by congress and where they appointed the head of the consumer financial protection bureau with vast powers to get into the personal financial information of every american and get them more authority than we would ever give any of our intelligence agencies. it strikes me as a tremendous abuse of power. it is not a question that i will use the opportunity to express frustration. i know the senator as the chairman of the banking community shares that with me. in the five minutes i have left, sq softball. cameras are in the courtroom. one of the reasons why i think the confirmations hearing are painful for the nominee and their family and friends are so important because more people in america have learned about how the government should operate and does operate by watching the last two days than they have through all of their time in elementary school, junior high school and high school and college. most americans don't really study american history anymore much less civic and i think this is a wonderful opportunity. i am glad your students, your

you voted to strike down net neutrality rules, gun safety laws, the organization of the consumer financial protection bureau environmental protections or workers rights or anti-discrimination laws. you've recently praised justice rehnquist dissent in hoe. you've embraced an approach to substantive due process that would undermine the rights and protections of millions of americans from basic protections for lbgt americans to access to contraception to healthcare and the ability for americans to love and marry whom they wish. i'm concerned my writings demonstrate a hostility to affirmative action and civil rights, and most importantly i believe you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced an interpretation of presidential power so expansive it could result in a dangerously unaccountable president at the very time when we are most in time of checks and balances. i want to pause for a moment on this last point because the context of your nomination troubles me the most.

patch was put in place in january, 2013, by the bureau of consumer financial protection. consumer financial protection. what does it say? fannie and freddie, f.h.a., v.a., u.s.d. are exempt from the ability to pay 43% for eight years. until 2021. that was their idea of consumer financial protection. after they had researched and found that d.t.i. was a critical omponent to a low-risk loan. the next slide that i'll get to shows that rather than undertake , orderly transition period the same agencies took advantage of it with one exception and actually grew the percentage of loans over 43%. so here's fannie that shows boom one and boom two. g.s.e. share above 42%. and it shows the pattern very similar in terms of the blue is the fannie share, excuse me, the g.s.e. share. the red is house prices. you see we have the same pattern both times. that's why we call it boom 2.0. it's following the exact same pattern. why? because the bureau allowed all of these entities to avoid or violate the rule that they said as so important. this is another view of that, which looks at each ind

of. well the. george three hundred military industrial complex is engaged just in war it only makes sense our government would lock its troops into personal debt as well the consumer financial protection bureau currently led by interim director and sneaky very me one of rollback protections of the military lending she filed this report. the mainstream media of rarely mentions that american made weapons are being used by foreign governments to kill innocent people that's why i have a responsibility as a journalist to embed myself in a conflict by every watching full metal jacket it's a great film. now i'm prepared to read this report on weapons manufacturers by code pink a women led anti-war grassroots organization which has been keeping capitol hill security busy the biggest names in death are raytheon northrop grumman boeing general dynamics and lockheed bar and each with their own brand of making people disappear these merchants of death profit off the war crimes perpetrated by repressive regimes such as israel egypt and saudi arabia saudi arabia as the most repressive they've recently declared online satire a punishable offense and as an online satirists i have a message for saudi arabia.

he also stated that under the leadership of acting director mulvaney, the bureau has abandoned the very consumers it is tasked by congress with protecting. and director mulvaney abused the bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in america. not surprising to me. he wrote that the bureau has failed student loan borrowers. while this bill may help h.r. 1635, in no way, it reverses the damage this administration has caused our students. congress is supposed to be a check on the administration. not a rubber stamp. the rule we are considering makes in order two amendments to h.r. 4606 and seven amendments in order in h.r. 1635. i'm deeply disappointed that my two amendments were not made in order to h.r. 1635. my amendments would have helped students who have suffered from the closure of schools or school branches. when schools close, it is the students who are the real losers. they are saddled with debt and with left having to navigate a complicated process for loan relief. the two amendments i offered would have streamlined the process for students to have their loans discharged, ensuring that bureaucracy didn't

regulatory boss on the job thate consumer financial protection agency, the consumer financial protection bureau has fulfilled a very important role in overseeingyou know, a major amount ofstudent loan debt. $1.5 trillion. thout the true commitment to helping students and having students' backs, this person resigning really felt like they weren't being able to do their : job. >> nawya, very quickly in a few second, what do you nhink is the overall impact o students as a result of these changes? >> well, you know, it is caveat esmor -- emptor more than ever before. for-profit colleges areill losing enroll. , but it's incumbent on each individual to do their own research before signing up for any program. >> nawaz: anya kamanetz of npr, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> brangham: now, we turn to another installment of our weekly "brief but spectacular" series, where we ask people about their passions. abby falik is the founder and c.e.o. of global citpren year, a noit in oakland, california that recruits and trains a diverse gro of american high school students to work abroad before they head off to college. >> when i graduated from high school, i was exhausted. i was li

we're talking of changes proposed by the utdepartment of education, want to ask you about another federal agency, the consumer financial protection bureau man was the student loan watchdog who resigned in proteat uple weeks ago is. that related to any of these changes at all? >> it is, because the student loan industry is a major, major part ooverall consumer finance industry. and it ismeverseen in ense by the education department, but as we've seen, there have been udny people from the nt loan industry as well as the for-profit college indusn y that have bstalled into the education department under betsy devos, even if that weren't true, the education department essentially collecting revenue from the student loan business, and so the point made by others who are consumer advocates is t there really needs to be another regulatory boss on the job that the consumer financial protection agency, the consumer financial ptection bureau has fulfilled a very important role in oversee ing, you know, jor amount of student loan debt. $1.5 trillion. without the true commitment toud helping ts and having students' backs, this person resigning reall

of this expanse iive view. i want to move onto consumer issues. in 2016, you wrote an opinion that was later overturned in which you found the consumer protection bureau unconstitutional. the majority recognized that millions of people were devastated by the financial crisis and they upheld this bureau and we know now in realtime the bureau has helped about 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief. you dissented in the case. i want to talk about the consequences of this legally. i know you focused on the bureau structure and we talked about that. you looked at the relevant history, and you said that agencies like the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau amounts to a headless branch of our government and pose a significant threat to individual liberty, end quote. does it follow you think that other independent agencies are also constitutionally suspect? >> the supreme court has upheld since 1935 the concept and practice of independent agencies. what on the cfpb decision, the structure of that agency devastated from the traditional historical practice of independent agencies -- >> do you think the humphries case that was 80

you cited the scalia dissent in the case of the consumer financial protection bureau where you guttedat agency. and in the 2011-7 sky case you dissented from a decision of the affordable care act and repeated over and over again and you said, under the constitution the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional. even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. your words. of course, the unitary executive theory was the basis of president bush's december 30th, 2005, signing statement claiming the authority to override the mccain torture amendment. yesterday i asked you what comments you made on the signing statement as president bush's staff secretary. senator feinstein asked a similar question this morning. what you told me is i can't recall what i said. i do recall there was a good deal of internal debate about that signing statement as you can imagine. i do remember it would be controversial internally. it's hard to imagine you can't remember that controversial issue. given our

circuit in which you found the consumer financial protection bureau unconstitutional. the majority recognized that millions of people were devastated by the financial crisis and they upheld this bureau and we know now in realtime the bureau has helped about 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief, but you dissented in the case. i want to talk about the consequences of this legally. i know you focused on the puburu structure, we talked about that. you said agencies like the cfpp, the consumer financial protection bureau pose a significant threat to individual liberty, end quote. so does it follow that you think that other independent agencies are also constitutionally suspect? >> the supreme court has of course upheld since 1935 humphries executor decision, the practice of independent agencies. on the cfpb decision, the structure of that agency deviated from the traditional historical practice of independent agencies. >> you think the humphries that was 80 years ago was correctly decided? >> it's a precedent of the supreme court and it's been reaffirmed many times. but on the cfpb case, i n

bureau, which investigates charities. we know the church gets a lot of donations. the charities bureau investigates unscrupulous charities, because it's a consumer protection group.e attorney general has. she doesn't have jurisdiction over criminal matters. but she's working with das around the state. she does say for most of the cases, the statute of limitations is probably run out. it's probably outside of that window. but they are looking into that. here is what the archdiocese is saying. they say, the archdiocese of new york and the other seven are ready and eager to work together with her in the investigation. this is just one, like you mentioned, there's multiple states. >> new jersey is starting something similar. here in new york, one thing i read that was interesting is that they have set up a victim hotline for witnesses of this or victims themselves. again, i'm surprised knowing -- we have known this has happened for so long, that that hasn't been set up before. it looks like they're trying to do what they can now. >> they are. that is so significant for survivors. that's one of the things they specifically told me about. finally, there's going to be a

of this expanse iive view. i want to move onto consumer issues. in 2016, you wrote an opinion that was later overturned in which you found the consumer protection bureau unconstitutional. the majority recognized that millions of people were devastated by the financial crisis and they upheld this bureau and we know now in realtime the bureau has helped about 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief. you dissented in the case. i want to talk about the consequences of this legally. i know you focused on the bureau structure and we talked about that. you looked at the relevant history, and you said that agencies like the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau amounts to a headless branch of our government and pose a significant threat to individual liberty, end quote. does it follow you think that other independent agencies are also constitutionally suspect? >> the supreme court has upheld since 1935 the concept and practice of independent agencies. what on the cfpb decision, the structure of that agency devastated from the traditional historical practice of independent agencies -- >> do you think the humphries case that was 80

consumer financial protection bureau and maybe of your dissents would undercut environmental protections or workers rights or anti-discrimination laws. you've recently praised justice rehnquist dissent in hoe. you've embraced an approach to substantive due process that would undermine the rights and protections of millions of americans from basic protections for lbgt americans to access to contraception to healthcare and the ability for americans to love and marry whom they wish. i'm concerned my writings demonstrate a hostility to affirmative action and civil rights, and most importantly i believe you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced an interpretation of presidential power so expansive it could result in a dangerously unaccountable president at the very time when we are most in time of checks and balances. i want to pause for a moment on this last point because the context of your nomination troubles me the most. in reviewing your records, judge, you've questioned the lawfulness of united states v. nixon, a historic decision in which a unanimous court said the president had

into and less personal debt as well the consumer financial protection bureau currently led by interim director and sneaky mick mulvaney plans to roll back protections of the military lending act a law that protects active duty military from predatory lenders and fraud for more on this we go to our senior loan shark natalie mcgill. no way. are you worried about this we are not too worried about a group that has an entire law written just for them while they're zero for the rest of us who made financial decisions right where is the law the stop college freshman natalie from signing up for a credit card for a free t. shirt. fifty dollars in some nachos. where's the lot of point out the fine print where it said it was actually just fifty dollars worth of nachos. plus the beer i was only scaling back on supervising lenders and just taking action against lenders if it receives a complaint so they'll wait until something happens before they do something that sounds like a terrible point out that sounds like every superhero i've seen in a movie ever. did you hear about the new superman movie where he just squats outside of lex luthor his house waiting for him

circuit in which you found the consumer financial protection bureau unconstitutional. the majority recognized that millions of people were devastated by the financial crisis, and they upheld this bureau and we know now in realtime the bureau has helped about 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief. but you dissented in the case. i want to talk about the consequences of this legally. i know you focused on the bureau structure. we talked about that. you looked at the relevant history and said agencies like the cfpb amount to a headless fourth branch of our government and that they, quote, pose a significant threat to individual liberty, unquote. so does it follow that you think that other independent agencies are also constitutionally suspect? >> so the supreme court is, of course, upheld since 1935 humphries executor decision that the concept and practice of independent agencies. on the cfpb decision, the structure of that agency deviated from the traditional historical practice of independent agencies. >> you think the humphries case that was 80 years ago was correctly decided. >> it's a p

opinion i plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. your dissent concluded that the bureau, an agency which has served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud from credit cards, loans, to mortgages was unconstitutional. or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality, rules that help all citizens and small business vs. an even playing field -- businesses have an even playing field when it comes to surfing the internet. another example mired in legalese but critical for americans, antitrust law n recent years the conservative majority on the supreme court has made it harder and harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. yet two of judge kavanaugh's major antitrust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. we should have more competition and not less. to go for my specific concerns and end on a higher plane, all of the attacks on the rule of law and j

mainstream of legal thought the president has the authority to enforce the law where he decided it was unconstitutional to strike down the neutrality the consumer financial protection bureau workers rights or antidiscrimination you praise the dissent of judge rehnquist in roe v wade so to approach that due process it would undermine the rights and protections of millions of americans to show a hostility to affirmative-action and i believe he repeatedly and enthusiastically embracedts this constitution that could result in a dangerous uncountable president of china are most in need. i want to part because the context of your nomination troubles me the most in reviewing your records you questioned the lawfulness which the unanimous court had to comply in the correctness of the 30 all precedent holding congress can create that counsel to investigate the president and cannot just fire at whim. and with those presidential power to be at one extreme to be uncomfortable that president trump may haveo selected you while protecting himself. asking about these issues i expect you to address them you agreed to share concerned about the legitimacy of the supreme court and today it is

of these agencies to insulate them from political interference. you have objected to this limit on the president's power and struck down the for cause requirement in a case involving the consumer financial protection bureau. the d.c. circuit disagreed and overturned your decision. if the president can fire the heads of independent agencies for any reason, what's to prevent political interference in these independent agencies? >> senator, i have followed the humphreys executor precedent. i've referred to it as entrenched. that is the precedent that allows independent agencies and protects them from at will firing, so as a general matter i have affirmed the -- or i have followed the precedent of humphreys executor. the example you're talking about, the congress established a new independent agency that did not follow a traditional model of independent agencies of having multiple members. that's all i thought was problematic there. i did not invalidate or say the agency should stop operating. i said the agency can continue performing its important functions on behalf of consumers but either it had to be restructured as a multi-member agency or the president had to be able to remove the single head at will.

opinion i plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. your dissent concluded that the bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. a recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. yet two of judge kavanaugh's major and i trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. we should have more competition and not less. now, to go from my specific concerns and end on a higher plane. all of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and i would guess some of m

you found the consumer financial protection bureau unconstitutional. the majority recognized that millions of people were recognized by the financial crisis and they upheld this bureau and we know now in real time the bureau has helped about 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief. you dissented in the case. i want to talk about the consequences of this legally. i know you focussed on the bureau's structure. you said that agencies like the cfpb amount to a headless fourth branch of our government and they pose a threat to civil liberty. so as a follow, do you think the other independent agencies are constitutionally suspect? >> the supreme court is obvious upheld since 1935 humphries executive decision that the concept and practice of independent agencies. on the cfpb decision, the structure of that agency deviated from the traditional historical practice of independent -- >> you think the humphries case of 80 years ago is correctly decided? >> it's a precedent of the supreme court and it's been reaffirmed many times. on the cfpb case, i need to get this out. i did not say

of these agencies, to insulate them from political interference. you have objected to this limit on the president's power and struck down the for cause requirement in a case involving the consumer financial protection bureau. the d.c. circuit disagreed and overturned your decision. if the president can fire the heads of independent agencies for any reason, what's to prevent political interference in these independent agencies? >> senator, i have followed the humphreys executor precedent. i referred to it as entrenched. it allows independent agencies and protects them from at-will firing, the for cause restriction. as a general matter, i have affirmed -- i followed the precedent of humphreys. the example you are talking about, the congress established a new independent agency that did not follow the traditional model of independent agencies of having multiple members. that's all i thought was problematic there. i did not invalidate or say the agency should stop operating. i said the agency can continue performing its important functions on behalf of consumers. either it had to be restructured or the president had to be able to remove the single head at will. >> the limited set of documents we have received

just the finding of unconstitutionality with the consumer financial protection bureau. nd in the internet rules where again, you're the only one saying this. and now you would be on the highest court of the land. if you are to be confirmed. for me, these rules, it is not just some law on the books. it is personal. we are proud of our clean water and clean lakes and rivers in minnesota. my grandpa worked 1500 feet underground in the minds his whole life. he went down in a cage and people would run as he didn't know who was killed in the mine that day. i still remember the coffins in the church. it was safety rules that came in place. many of them implemented by agencies that got us to where we are. and it really concerns me if we overturn all of that and just leave it in the hands of congress to have to go through all of these minute details when we can even issue 42,000 documents. >> senator blumenthal. >> two quick points? >> sure, i didn't know there was a question. >> have a large number of cases with epa wave upheld epa rules that have done things. and another admini