[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 9, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1514-H1519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION RELATING TO ``DEFINING LARGER PARTICIPANTS OF A MARKET FOR
GENERAL-USE DIGITAL CONSUMER PAYMENT APPLICATIONS''
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 284,
I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) disapproving the rule
submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to
``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital
Consumer Payment Applications,'' and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 28
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the final rule submitted by the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger
Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer
Payment Applications'' (89 Fed. Reg. 99582 (December 10,
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to
overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's deeply flawed final
rule on larger participants in general-use digital payment
applications.
It sounds complicated, Mr. Speaker, but it is not. This is a midnight
rule created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is overly
broad, and it is imprecise. It treats a wide variety of digital payment
applications, peer-to-peer apps, digital wallets, and e-commerce tools,
as though they are identical simply because they facilitate payments
and serve a large numbers of users.
However, these products are not the same. They serve different
models, operate under different rules, and pose different kinds of
consumer risks.
This kind of regulatory overreach is bad enough on its own, but what
makes this rule especially concerning is the process by which it was
created. The CFPB's approach to carry out this rulemaking is a clear
example of undemocratic and unjustified action. The CFPB gave the
public just 30 days to comment on this proposal. That is 30 days for
businesses across the country, Members of Congress, State regulators,
and the public to weigh in on a rule that has potentially profound
consequences for digital commerce, one of the most rapidly growing
portions of Financial Services and FinTech.
In addition, the Bureau rushed to finalize the rule in the waning
days of the Biden administration, ignoring much of the stakeholder
feedback and pushing it through to try and insulate it from future
scrutiny or reconsideration.
Now, this is not the first time that the CFPB has issued rules
without sufficient transparency or process. In fact, Members on both
sides of the aisle during my years in Congress have routinely
criticized the CFPB for rushing matters, not following the process, not
giving the public sufficient time to criticize and critique its
proposals. However, Mr. Speaker, this needs to be the last time that
the CFPB does this.
In a post-Chevron deference world, Congress must step in and assert
our Article I authority over independent agencies that stray beyond
their statutory authority, bypass the legislative process, and
undermine the public trust.
Let's be clear: There is no apparent evidence of widespread consumer
harm that justifies this rule. There is no demonstrated market failure
here. What we have instead is an agency stretching its mandate in a way
Congress never intended.
By allowing this final rule to remain intact, we are affirming that
scale alone justifies the regulation, meaning size and scope alone
justifies the regulation regardless of the conduct, the risk, or harm
to a consumer.
This CFPB approach violates decades of balanced principles in
assessing and implementing regulations in finance. It certainly is not
the barometer that Congress intended for the CFPB to use when
interpreting their authorities.
This is not responsible, risk-based regulation. It is a shortcut to
control, applied without the justification that both consumers and
innovators deserve.
Some may try to frame this argument as a gift to Big Tech. That is a
distraction. This is not about defending large companies. This is about
defending good governance, our legislative authority, and the public's
right to be part of major and costly regulatory decisionmaking.
{time} 1230
If we allow this rule to stand, we are setting a dangerous precedent,
one where Federal agencies can bypass Congress, ignore public input,
and rewrite rules largely behind closed doors. This is a precedent that
we cannot afford to set, regardless of who is in the White House or who
is in the crosshairs.
Mr. Speaker, the CFPB operated without accountability or
transparency. It has undermined consumer protections, stifled
innovation, and eroded public trust.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and reassert the
proper role of Congress in setting the regulatory agenda and shaping
sound financial policy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 28, a
partisan Congressional Review Act resolution that will block the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from supervising payment apps
offered by Big Tech firms like Apple and Google.
Before I explain why this resolution is bad, let us not ignore that
President Trump and co-president Musk are tearing down key government
agencies and programs as we speak, like the CFPB and Social Security.
Last week, the President launched a global trade war against the rest
of the world, including our friends, resulting in a record 2-day loss
of $6.6 trillion in wealth. Fed Chair Powell warned that these tariffs
will lead to higher inflation and job losses.
Later today, Republicans will try to pass the President's budget that
is loaded with $7 trillion in tax cuts for Musk and the other Big Tech
billionaires, all while they are slashing Medicaid by $880 billion and
walking into our agencies and firing employees, some who have been
working at these agencies for 10, 15, 20 years, telling them to get out
by 5 o'clock.
[[Page H1515]]
I absolutely respect the chair of the Committee on Financial
Services, Mr. Hill, and what he does, but to talk about good
government, he is absolutely defending what nobody would consider good
government. We are in a chaotic position in the government of the
United States of America. This is the worst we have ever seen. We have
never seen anything like this. As a matter of fact, I think it is a
coup d'etat.
I am here today because instead of considering bills to lower costs
for consumers, Republicans have called up yet another bill to help out
the richest man on the planet, the richest man on the planet who is a
friend of Mr. Trump's, who has not been elected by anybody and who is
absolutely controlling our government now. He is controlling the firing
of people and the destroying of agencies. All of that is being done by
an unelected billionaire who is intent on changing this government in
ways that make it look like a dictatorship.
Notably, this resolution will shield Elon Musk's X app, which will
soon get into the payments business, from supervision and oversight by
the CFPB.
The CFPB oversees the largest banks and the services they provide to
consumers, including their payment apps. However, until the larger
participant rule was issued, the CFPB did not have the authority to
supervise and examine the payment platforms of Big Tech companies.
In 2024, the CFPB leveled the playing field between big banks and Big
Tech. This rule was necessary because Big Tech and other nonbank firms
have increasingly offered mobile wallets and payment apps for consumers
to use.
While the same consumer protection laws that apply to the banks do
not apply to these big Big Tech firms, it is critical that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau examine them to ensure that they, too, are
following the law. This will help the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau oversee these great Big Tech apps to protect the millions of
consumers who use them and their digital wallets from fraud, to
safeguard their sensitive personal data, and to prevent unfair,
deceptive, or abusive practices.
Let's be clear. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule that
Republicans want to repeal by passing S.J. Res. 28 imposes no new
standards on these big, large payment apps. CFPB's rule simply allows
the government to check these companies are following the law--the very
law that Congress passed to give the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau the authority to examine the largest Big Tech participants.
Payment fraud is at an all-time high, and these payment apps play a
big role in that increase. I have received more and more complaints
from constituents who have been tricked, scammed, and defrauded out of
their hard-earned money on these payment apps. Consumer use of payment
apps is only increasing, with lower income households experiencing a
disproportionate share of complaints.
Between 2018 and 2021, fraud-related complaints involving Venmo, Cash
App, and other payment apps surged by over 460 percent while financial
losses skyrocketed by more than 360 percent.
Candidly, we should be working together across the aisle to tackle
this rise in payment fraud, not undermining the authority of the agency
that can enforce the law. This should not be a partisan issue.
Instead, Democrats have to fight back against both Trump's efforts to
kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Republican efforts to
gut the authorities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I am
hopeful that we are making progress in stopping these efforts to
protect big Big Tech and predatory lenders.
A district court judge blocked the Trump administration from
dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before the
administration appealed the ruling, and even this terrible resolution
before us received bipartisan opposition in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, as we stand here and discuss these anticonsumer CRAs
today, our constituents are deeply concerned about losing Social
Security and Medicaid because of Elon Musk's reckless cuts to
government. Families and businesses across America are struggling as
Trump raises taxes on Americans nationwide through tariffs.
It makes no sense to pass legislation that eliminates oversight of
these big Big Tech apps while millions of people are being defrauded,
scammed, and basically ripped off.
We see this bill for what it is: a thank-you gift to Elon Musk and
other Big Tech billionaires who came to Trump's rescue during the 2024
election. We all saw them front and center at Trump's inauguration. You
saw those billionaires accompanying him. Why are all the billionaires
getting together? They are getting together because they don't want to
pay more taxes. They want to get rid of employees who are providing all
kinds of services to the constituents of this country in order for the
richest people in the country to pay less taxes. Well, all of them run
companies that will directly benefit from passing this resolution.
Enough is enough.
I urge Members of this House to show some courage and stand up for
consumers. Stand up for the rule of law and reject this harmful
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say, but I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I absolutely think Members of this House should stand up for the rule
of law starting with Article I, the legislative authority that we draft
the statutes here and direct the independent agencies how to do their
rulemakings, under what conditions to do their rulemakings, how to
evaluate their rulemakings, and what is a reasonable amount of time to
get public input.
We have the right, on behalf of the elected Representatives of the
American people, to let our voices be known when a nonelected, to quote
my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), unelected
bureaucrat chooses to step beyond the bounds of the statute and do
something not in keeping with process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Flood), my good friend, who serves as the subcommittee chair for the
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for his attentiveness
to this issue, and I thank my colleague in the Senate, my co-lead,
Senator Pete Ricketts from Nebraska, for championing this effort and
getting the resolution through the U.S. Senate in record time, in less
than a week. He beat us to it.
There are a lot of reasons to support this resolution eliminating the
larger participant rulemaking from the CFPB.
Number one--think about this--the CFPB finalized this rule in the
eleventh hour in January days before the transfer of power, well after
other agencies stopped their rulemaking.
Number two, the rule itself is effectively a regulatory power grab by
the CFPB's outgoing Biden nominee, Mr. Chopra. By designating companies
engaged in payments activities as larger participants, the Bureau will
get to expand their examination authority over an amorphous and ill-
defined group of firms with payment tools. Given their track record, I
think it is fair to say that we should not be supporting greater exam
reach of the CFPB.
I don't want our concerns to remain abstract. Let's take a look at
some of the practical effects that CFPB examination would have over
these payment firms.
First, let's take a look at some of the problems with how the rule
actually distinguishes who is and is not a larger participant in
payments. The rule does not only apply to tools where consumers are
using wallets to exchange funds on a peer-to-peer basis. It also
applies to any number of payment intermediaries that assist small
businesses and merchants.
For example, express checkout tools would be affected by this
rulemaking. Let's say you want to buy an item on the website of a small
retailer in Lincoln, Nebraska. If that website allows interfacing with
express checkout tools, as many do, then you are going to see the
effects from this rulemaking on their ability to easily accept payments
from their customers.
Congress aside, everybody in this room should fear what happens at my
house when my wife does not have access to express checkout.
[[Page H1516]]
According to a survey from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Council, 53 percent of small business owners use express checkout
tools. When asked whether express checkout services help their business
succeed, 94 percent of small businesses agreed that the online payment
tool is boosting their businesses' growth.
Yet, despite the obvious potential for Main Street and small business
effects from this rulemaking, the CFPB failed to conduct any
substantive analysis of the effects this rulemaking would have on small
businesses or even conduct a sufficient cost-benefit analysis of the
rulemaking more broadly.
The reason was the Bureau was less interested in the cost of the rule
than in expanding their own regulatory reach. This rule is a perfect
example of regulate first, ask questions later. That was the approach
of Director Chopra.
Ultimately, this style of regulation is going to chill innovation and
hurt the smallest players that depend on these technologies to compete
with the big guys.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by myself and 19
Financial Services Committee Republicans to Director Chopra in 2023.
Congress of the United States,
Washington DC, December 18, 2023.
Hon. Rohit Chopra,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Chopra: We write today to express our concern
with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB)
proposed rule subjecting large participants within the
general-use digital consumer payment application industry to
CFPB supervision. Innovation is the driving engine of the
American economy and the proposed rulemaking's broad scope
will have significant consequences on the ability for nonbank
firms to offer innovative products and services and for
consumers to benefit from competition in the market.
scope of the proposal
Under the proposed definition and criteria, the CFPB
estimates that 17 market participants would be affected by
this rule. However, the Bureau fails to identify which firms
comprise that number, or to provide specific criteria that
would enable market participants to determine the firms
captured by the rule. It is essential that businesses and
consumers understand the implications of this proposal to
enable them to provide comprehensive feedback on its impact.
Further, it is important to clearly delineate the extent of
the rulemaking's scope. In its current form, the proposal
leaves open the possibility that entities far outside the
market for general-use digital consumer payment applications
will be captured. For example, the proposal specifies that
the CFPB's supervisory authority ``is not limited to the
products or services that qualified the person for
supervision.'' This suggests the rule will have no
boundaries, which is unacceptable and will create significant
uncertainty.
While the proposed rule contains certain exclusions, these
exclusions further confuse the intended scope of the
proposal. For example, the definition of a covered consumer
payment transaction excludes ``[a] payment transaction
conducted by a person for the sale or lease of goods or
services that a consumer selected from an online or physical
store or marketplace operated prominently in the name or such
person or its affiliated company.'' While this exclusion
seems to cover transactions between consumers and merchants
using a merchant's own payment software, the proposal later
states the exemption for merchants would not apply, ``if a
merchant or online marketplace's digital consumer application
stores, transmits, or otherwise processes payments or
financial data for any purpose other than initiating a
payments transaction by the consumer.'' When combined, these
two provisions within the rule create further ambiguity
regarding the scope of the proposal for merchants. Without a
meaningful exclusion for merchants, the Bureau's authority
could extend from players in consumer payments directly to
merchants across the country.
As you know, third party point of sale technology is used
largely by small businesses, and the frequency with which
small businesses are accepting digital payments is
increasing. With this in mind, the CFPB should consider the
impact this rule will have on the merchants that rely on
electronic payment services to process payments. The
rulemaking could have serious implications for small
businesses and sole proprietors across the country, and we
believe the CFPB should carefully assess the rule in this
context.
Furthermore, we are concerned the CFPB neglected to fully
consider the impact of increased compliance costs. The
proposed rule states, ``the CFPB lacks detailed information
with which to predict the extent to which increased costs
would be borne by providers or passed on to consumers, to
predict how providers might respond to higher costs, or to
predict how consumers might respond to increased prices.''
However, with no analysis conducted on the compliance costs
of the proposal, the rule later certifies that the proposal
``would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' The inability to
track the costs of compliance of this proposal, and how it
would be passed down to small entities, paired with an
assurance that the rule will not have a significant effect on
those same entities is alarming. If the Bureau believes small
entities will not be significantly affected by the rule, it
should provide the evidence it uses to support that claim.
digital assets
Lastly, we also have concerns regarding the rule's
applicability to digital assets and digital asset wallet
providers. The proposed rule indicates that the purchase of a
crypto asset using fiat currency would be exempted by the
rule. However, the rule includes digital assets in its
definition of ``funds.'' Taken together, these two provisions
raise many questions, including what crypto asset
transactions would be included in the rule and whether the
rule extends to certain wallet providers.
The CFPB's proposed rule also comes as other jurisdictions
are pushing to promote both competition and innovation in
payments. Given the CFPB's track record of overreach, we
strongly urge the Bureau to refrain from exceeding its
authority and instead, commit to clarifying and narrowing the
scope of this rule. Given the breadth of the proposal and
ambiguity regarding its applicability, we urge the Bureau to
extend the comment period for an additional 30 days. This
additional time will give market participants the opportunity
to provide comprehensive feedback.
Sincerely,
Patrick McHenry, Chairman, House Committee on Financial
Services; Mike Flood, Andy Barr, Tom Emmer, Dan Meuser,
Byron Donalds, Young Kim, Scott Fitzgerald, French
Hill, Ann Wagner, Bryan Steil, William R. Timmons, IV,
Erin Houchin, Michael V. Lawler, Alex X. Mooney, Andy
Ogles, Andrew R. Garbarino, Zach Nunn, Barry
Loudermilk, Ralph Norman, Members of Congress.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, in addition, the Bureau has consistently
tried to imply their authority would not only apply to tech companies,
but there is a chance they could bring merchants into their regulatory
purview as well. The general counsel of the CFPB said in a speech
during Director Chopra's tenure that merchants might be implicated as
large payment players in the future if they aren't mom-and-pops.
Last year, in response to a question on the record from me on this
topic, the Director made the case that a merchant that incorporates
payment capabilities directly into a website could potentially blur the
lines between banking and commerce and, therefore, be subject to the
CFPB oversight in the future.
{time} 1245
However, Dodd-Frank explicitly calls for an exclusion for the
merchants from the CFPB's regulatory purview. That idea that a merchant
engaging in a commercial financial activity due to payment activities
in a merchant's own store or website is outright ridiculous, and it
represents yet another expansion of the CFPB's rapidly growing
authority.
Finally, I would like to highlight another major concern with CFPB
examination authority of these firms and what it would bring. The firms
within the scope of this rulemaking are payments firms, but some of
these firms also have a social media element to their businesses.
If we fail to act here in Congress, there will be career bureaucrats
from the CFPB with the authority to examine some of the most
influential social media companies in the country behind the scenes.
Do any of us really think that a liberal CFPB examiner would restrict
their comments to only a social media company's payment activities?
Are we sure that they wouldn't provide some ``feedback'' on the free
speech policies of Meta or X?
Leaving this rulemaking in place could provide the next Democratic
administration with the tools that they need to more directly influence
even social media.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is interesting that my friend, Chairman Hill, raised process
concerns over the CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, rule that
would include following the Administrative Procedure Act.
Mr. Speaker, really? This doesn't make good sense.
Shouldn't Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE minions have to follow the law?
[[Page H1517]]
Let me be clear. It is unconstitutional for the President to delete
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or any other agency without
congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are here to deal with two regulations,
the first dealing with payment systems, and the second dealing with
overdraft protection. In both cases, I came here for the entertainment
value to watch Republican after Republican tell us how much the
majority doesn't trust the Trump administration. It is as if Trump
doesn't control the CFPB.
Mr. Speaker, the regulation we are considering now is just a
regulation that says that this is an area we are going to look at.
Republicans are afraid the Trump administration will look at it. It
doesn't do anything except begin a process.
Mr. Speaker, as to both of these CRAs, the effect is not only to
erase what was done under the Biden administration but prohibit the new
administration from adopting any consumer protection. That is because
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want zero consumer
protection and the Trump administration to have an excuse.
The excuse is: Congress passed the CRA. We are prohibited from
writing a regulation in that area.
The Republican administration could rewrite these rules. Congress
could overwrite these rules. Instead, we are erasing the rules and
prohibiting other rules from being there.
Mr. Speaker, I spent this morning being told that we need to have
cryptocurrency because it is going to be this great payment system and,
for some reason, the payment systems that use U.S. dollars aren't good.
Now I am here on the floor being told that Venmo and its competitors
are so wonderful that there should be absolutely no regulation.
On the one hand, we have to create a new currency for drug dealers,
and, on the other hand, the current system using the U.S. dollar
shouldn't even be regulated because it is perfect.
Why do we need to regulate here? First, to prevent excessive fees;
second, to prevent deception; but, third--and this is obvious--to
prevent the loss of consumer money.
Venmo is holding $7 billion of consumers' money. If you have a tiny
bank that is one-tenth or one-hundredth the size of Venmo, you have to
make sure that you have reserves. You can't take the money to the horse
races. Yet, Venmo can do anything with the money. If they lose the $7
billion, you as a consumer are out of luck, and Trump can say: It
wasn't my fault because Congress prohibited us from having prudential
regulations.
If an entity in the transactions business is going to hold $7 billion
of consumers' money, shouldn't we at least make sure that the money is
still there, and shouldn't we make sure that they don't engage in
Botswana currency swaps and others with the highest risk transactions
they can find to perhaps make a lot of money or lose all of the
consumers' money. Heads, I win. Tails, the consumers lose.
Mr. Speaker, I will take 1 minute or 2 to talk about the other
regulation because, after Members vote against the first of these
resolutions, you are going to feel so good that you are going to want
to vote against the second one.
This is the one that limits overdraft fees to $5 for the big banks,
the 175 biggest banks, or they can charge what their actual cost is if
it is more than $5. It requires disclosure of what these overdraft fees
are going to be.
It will save American consumers $6.1 billion every year. If we are
concerned about inflation, why shouldn't we tell the banks that
overdraft is not a profit center? They can recover their costs or maybe
a little bit more, but they don't turn to the consumer and say: You
were so dumb that you had an overdraft, so we are going to hit you with
a wild fee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, do not vote to prohibit regulation of
payment systems. Do not vote to prohibit limitations on overdraft
protection. Do not vote to allow $6.1 billion to be transferred from
constituents to the biggest banks in the country. Vote ``no,'' and then
vote ``no'' again.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, known as CFPB,
was created for one reason: to protect everyday people from getting
ripped off, especially when tech companies start acting like banks.
If a tech company wants to be trusted with your money, it should play
by the same rules as any bank. That is what the CFPB was doing. It was
making sure the rules apply to everyone.
Yet, Elon Musk doesn't want to follow the rules. He wants to turn X,
formerly known as Twitter, into a payment platform without any
accountability and no rules. If you get scammed, that is too bad. No
refunds, nothing, nada.
The people who will get hurt are those people like in my district who
I represent: young people, working families, and folks just starting to
save for the future. We are fighting to protect them because the CFPB
isn't just a watchdog. It is a lifeline.
We are not going to stand by while Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their
billionaire buddies try to kill it.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), the distinguished former speaker of
the house of North Carolina, who is a new member of the House Committee
on Financial Services.
Mr. MOORE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 28, a joint
resolution to overturn the CFPB's final rule targeting larger
participants in general-use digital consumer payment applications.
This rule is a textbook case of regulatory overreach. It stems from a
flawed process and applies an overly broad approach that blurs
important distinctions between very different products and services in
the digital economy.
Rather than taking a thoughtful and tailored approach, the CFPB opted
for a sweeping rule that treats all digital payment services as if they
are the same, ignoring critical differences that matter for both
consumers as well as providers.
When regulators fail to distinguish fundamentally different products,
they don't just risk getting it wrong, but they guarantee it. The
digital economy is too important and evolving too quickly for blanket
policies built on vague definitions and rushed processes. We need
thoughtful, targeted oversight that reflects reality, not a one-size-
fits-all mandate that will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Flood and Chairman Hill for their
work on this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, CFPB's larger participant rule does not apply any new
consumer protection standards. It only helps the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ensure that Big Tech companies comply with the laws
they must already follow.
Both banks and nonbanks are already subject to Federal consumer
financial protection laws, but Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
supervision is a key tool to ensure that Big Tech follows the law and
does not misuse consumer data and that consumers are not being scammed,
defrauded, or unlawfully debanked.
This rule allows the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to also
conduct routine exams of the 17 largest nonbank payment apps that
facilitated $12.8 billion payment transactions in 2021 with a total
dollar value of about $1.7 trillion.
This is not the first time the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
has used this authority in this way. The Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau previously issued five larger participant rules to examine the
largest
[[Page H1518]]
nonbanks with respect to consumer reporting, consumer debt collection,
student loan servicing, international money transfers, and automobile
financing.
Why should Big Tech get special treatment? Why should they be treated
any differently?
Our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), claimed that
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did not conduct sufficient
cost-benefit analysis for this rule, but that is not accurate. There
are more than 30 pages of highly detailed cost-benefit analysis, and
the gentleman just doesn't like it.
Mr. Speaker, we know that side of the aisle wishes to kill the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans have tried in every
way possible. Yet, this side of the aisle maintains that our
constituents send us here to represent them. Consumers need somewhere
to make complaints. Those complaints need to be investigated.
Organizations need to be fined if those operations or organizations are
abusing them or misusing them.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate this issue, I remind everyone what is truly
happening. Through this CRA, Republicans are opening the door for
President Trump and co-president Musk to further enrich themselves and
all of their business ventures with their own digital payment systems,
including X and Trump's new payment system, Stablecoin.
Mr. Speaker, this is a point that everybody should pay attention to:
The President of the United States and his family have created their
own crypto companies. In addition to that, in the middle of us trying
to negotiate on Stablecoin to come to some agreement about guardrails
to protect the average investor, he has now founded a new company where
he is going to own Stablecoin.
As a matter of fact, Republican efforts to dismantle and weaken the
CFPB's authority allows Trump and Musk's companies to conveniently
avoid the CFPB's oversight and supervision.
When I was chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Democrats
held Big Tech companies to account, including convening a hearing with
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over his plans to develop cryptocurrency
called Libra.
Moreover, when Democrats led passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, we
empowered the CFPB to supervise any large nonbank, including Big Tech,
when they facilitate payments or offer financial products to consumers
to ensure that consumers are always protected, no matter who they are
dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with now through Trump's and Musk's
unapologetic conflicts of interest and self-profiteering poses far
greater risks.
{time} 1300
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is extraordinarily
important. We worked hard for consumers to have somewhere to go when
they have complaints about being ripped off. Why is it that we would
have any Member of Congress in any way oppose protecting our consumers?
I can't answer that. I don't know why.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Seth Frotman, CFPB's former general counsel and student
loan ombudsman summed up our current situation well. He testified:
``You, your family, your neighbors, and your community are at risk
today because President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russell Vought have
corruptly handed over the keys of our Nation's consumer watchdog to the
largest banks and tech companies in the world. What is happening at the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an insult--to Congress, to the
rule of law--to all of us.''
``When you look past the rhetoric--the deceptively labeled bills
touting through-the-looking-glass `reform'--what is going on in the
executive branch, alongside what is being talked about here in
Congress, really boils down to the one time-tested proposition: Which
side are you on?
``If you are going to stand idly by when the Nation's consumer
watchdog is decimated--if you push a legislative agenda of more junk
fees, abusive medical debt collection practices, Big Tech domination,
and predatory lending--then the answer is pretty clear.''
Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 28 is opposed by nearly 200 consumer, civil
rights, religious, and good governance organizations. It was also
opposed by a bipartisan group of Senators. I urge my colleagues to vote
for American consumers, not the unelected Elon Musk and other Big Tech
oligarchs and billionaires that are just waiting to take over this
country. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that, again, we are talking about unelected
bureaucrats in an agency that is not following the strict direction of
Congress and have overreached in how they have proposed this rule at
the last minute at the end of the Biden administration. It is truly a
midnight rule with limited comment period.
Mr. Speaker, 30 days is the minimum under anybody's consideration of
a fair-minded Administrative Procedure Act comment period. Yet,
everything you read says that it should be extended if market
participants feel like they haven't been heard, and 30 days at the end
of an administration over the holiday period at the end of the year is
not sufficient time for Members of Congress, market participants,
consumers, and others to weigh in. I do have process concerns about how
the former director of the CFPB carried on this particular proposal.
Secondly, my colleagues have talked about the substance of it and how
it is confusing and steps beyond, again, the mission and the direction
by Congress to the CFPB.
My good friend from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of
the full committee, referenced several other large participant-type
rules that had been proposed by the CFPB, but they were in discrete
market segments.
Mr. Speaker, this is actually one of the biggest concerns about this
proposal. It is a wide variety of digital payment services from peer-
to-peer apps, to a digital wallet, to e-commerce tools, like the
gentleman from Nebraska talked about, as if they are identical simply
because they facilitate a certain number of payments, but they are not
substantively the same. They can't be treated identically. That is a
huge flaw in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for Mr. Flood's support of S.J.
Res. 28. He has worked hard on this with Senator Ricketts from his home
State of Nebraska. They stand on the facts that a vote for this
resolution is a vote to prevent the CFPB from stifling financial
innovation with its one-size-fits-all approach and limiting customers'
access to increased access to financial payments.
Nonbank providers of digital payments are already being regulated at
both the State and the Federal levels. American consumers did not
petition us, Mr. Speaker, to intervene in this way at the last minute
in the waning days of the Biden administration. Of all the CFPB's
annual complaints that they collect year in and year out, less than 1
percent even touch on this market.
This Congressional Review Act will overturn last-minute rulemaking
from the Biden-Harris administration and ensure that consumers have
access to innovative financial products.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support S.J. Res. 28, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knott). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on third reading of the bill.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page H1519]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________