GOP senators are fuming about the attempt by the FDIC board’s Democratic appointees to undercut the Republican chairman and are exploring ways to deter similar moves in the future. Among the options under consideration: Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee are weighing sending virtually all of the president’s nominees under the panel’s purview back to the White House — including the renomination of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, according to a GOP aide. What that means in practice: At the end of the year, any of the president’s nominees who haven’t yet been confirmed may be carried over to the new session of Congress, as long as all senators agree. Republicans could block that move, and force the administration to resubmit the nominations — 12 in total — when Congress reconvenes in January, a cumbersome process that could delay some confirmations and potentially derail others. “If this type of behavior continues, there will be a price to pay,” the aide said, but emphasized that no decisions have been made. Meanwhile, in a letter to the president this morning obtained by MM, the committee Republicans urged President Joe Biden to rebuke Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra and FDIC board member Martin Gruenberg “for their attempt to politicize the FDIC and compromise its neutrality and independence by disregarding its bylaws and its historical practice of conducting agency business through the chairman.” The committee Republicans also asked Biden to promptly replace Gruenberg, the former FDIC chairman appointed by President Obama whose term as a board member expired three years ago. “It is inappropriate for a director to continue serving on the FDIC board long after the expiration of his term in order to undermine its Senate-confirmed leader,” they wrote. It’s been a little more than a week since Chopra, Gruenberg and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu tried to advance a formal request for information about bank merger rules — only to be blocked by Chairman Jelena McWilliams. (It’s worth pointing out that Hsu, who voted for the action but didn’t join Chopra and Gruenberg in a statement after the meeting, wasn’t mentioned by Republicans in their letter.) McWilliams, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, says the board members flouted the longstanding rules and norms of the agency in an attempt to wrest control from her. But CFPB officials insist the law is on their side and say the chairman cannot override the will of the majority. House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called on McWilliams Thursday to explain her legal authority for essentially blocking the vote on the merger rule. Twenty progressive groups also called on Biden to fire McWilliams if she refuses to allow the Democratic majority on her board to set the agency’s agenda, our Victoria Guida reported. Georgetown Law professor Adam Levitin, in a piece for POLITICO Magazine Thursday, said the same. One key question: Where did this idea come from? The idea of Democratic board members asserting more authority at the FDIC has been circulating among progressives for some time. In a draft paper earlier this year, Todd Phillips, director of Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance at the Center for American Progress and a former FDIC lawyer, looked at the lack of laws governing the relationships between members of multi-member commissions and boards throughout the government. In the FDIC’s case, the bylaws give the board members much more power than officials on other boards or commissions, where the chairman usually has the final say, Phillips says. In a November op-ed in the Hill, Phillips encouraged the board members to use their authority to direct FDIC staff to take action, such as issuing climate supervisory guidance for banks. Gruenberg and Chopra, who hired former CAP policy analyst Gregg Gelzinis to advise him on FDIC matters, used a different strategy, instead circulating a draft rule prepared by CFPB staff. “The [FDIC] majority has several different avenues to exercise its prerogatives,” a CFPB official told MM this week. “It didn’t take an army of lawyers to analyze the statute and bylaws. They pretty plainly provide the authority of the board to the board, and not to the chairman.” IT’S FRIDAY — A huge, heartfelt thanks from your MM host for the warm welcome to this role over the past few months. We hope you’re enjoying this new chapter as much as we are. We’ll see you in the new year! Meantime, you can reach us with your latest Fed nomination predictions or favorite holiday movie suggestions at kdavidson@politico.com, aweaver@politico.com or on Twitter at @katedavidson or @aubreeeweaver. | 
