CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5403, which would not only prohibit the issuance of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, but would go so far as to prohibit the Federal Reserve from holding bank reserves that are critical to operating payment systems and combating inflation.

Let me start with the harmful implications of the bill's prohibitions on the issuance of a CBDC.

A CBDC is a type of digital asset issued by a country's central bank, which in the United States is the Federal Reserve.

Compared to other digital assets, CBDCs have a greater potential to maintain a stable value, garner public trust, and become a viable means of payment transactions.

There are two main types of CBDCs, retail CBDCs that consumers could get from the Fed or a financial institution to pay for everyday things like a cup of coffee, and wholesale CBDCs that would not be used by individual consumers and instead only used for transactions among financial institutions and the Fed.

CBDCs are no longer a remote, futuristic possibility. Madam Chair, 134 countries and currency unions around the world, representing 98 percent of global GDP, are currently exploring or implementing a CBDC.

Some have referred to the development of a CBDC as the next space race, but the United States is way behind the curve.

What is more, there is growing concern that China, which has already issued its own CBDC that has been used by hundreds of millions of people, will be able to significantly influence the rest of the world's CBDC development because the U.S. is so far behind.

This is especially problematic, given the Chinese CBDC has government surveillance baked in while a United States CBDC could be designed to protect consumer privacy and other deeply held American values.

This bill exacerbates these concerns by proposing to make the United States the first and only country in the world to ban a CBDC.

By allowing other countries, especially China, to race ahead of us, H.R. 5403 directly threatens the primacy of the United States dollar.

Today, more than half of all international trade and more than 90 percent of all foreign exchange transactions are done in dollars. The dollar's dominance provides significant benefits to the United States, like lower borrowing costs for consumers, lower capital costs for United States businesses, and the ability to better implement U.S. foreign policy goals.

In fact, the dollar's widespread use is what makes our sanctions so powerful, allowing us to block adversaries like Russia and Iran from doing business not just with the United States but with anyone who uses the dollar.

That is why countries, including China and Russia, are trying to establish an alternative to the dollar, including developing alternative digital currencies so they can more effectively evade United States sanctions.

CBDCs also have the potential to offer benefits compared to United States dollars like faster and cheaper transactions.

If the United States sits on the sidelines as other major economies move forward with CBDC development, another digital currency like the digital euro could very well become the world's preferred currency for international trade.

If this weren't bad enough, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, has pointed out that the ban on CBDCs in this bill can be interpreted to encompass the Federal Reserve's bank reserves.

These reserves are instrumental to several core functions of the Fed, including their ability to conduct monetary policy.

This means that H.R. 5403 would undermine the Federal Reserve's set of tools needed to ensure our economy does not enter a recession as inflation comes down.

It also means that the bill could disrupt our banking system by preventing the Fed from using payment systems like Fedwire to quickly move funds between financial institutions.

While some may think that this is merely a drafting error, it appears to be deliberate. During the markup of their bill, Democrats pointed out on the record how this overly broad definition of CBDC could harm the Fed's broader ability to conduct monetary policy.

Despite having every opportunity to fix the bill before it was considered here today, Republicans have kept the language the same.

Let's not forget that Donald Trump has made clear his intention to undermine the Fed with repeated threats to fire the Fed Chair when he was in office, and more recently, with reports that he would want to set interest rates from the Oval Office.

Furthermore, Project 2025, which is an extreme MAGA transition playbook for a Trump administration, would abolish the Fed. House Republicans

have already introduced a bill to do just that.

I urge Members to see this bill for what it is. It is not about protecting consumer privacy. After all, our current financial system has a number of data privacy shortcomings that this bill would do nothing to address.

Moreover, there is nothing inherent about a CBDC that would compromise privacy. That is a design feature that is within our control.

This bill is, instead, an attempt to stifle U.S. innovation and competitiveness abroad and to undermine the Federal agency that is the most critical to fighting inflation. Unbelievable.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am surprised by my friend Representative French Hill. Representatives French Hill and Bill Foster sent Fed Chair Jay Powell a letter on CBDCs stating:

The Federal Reserve, as the central bank of the United

States, has the ability and the natural role to develop a

national digital currency.

With the potential for digital currencies to further take

on the characteristics and utility of paper money, it may

become increasingly imperative that the Federal Reserve take

up the project of developing a U.S. dollar digital currency.

We are concerned that the primacy of the U.S. dollar could

be in long-term jeopardy from wide adoption of digital fiat

currencies.

Relying on the private sector to develop digital currencies

carries its own risks, including loss of control of monetary

policy, as well as the ability to implement and enforce

effective anti-money laundering and counterterrorism

financing.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) who is also the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Chair, the bill's sponsor has warned that a U.S. CBDC would mirror the surveillance tactics that are baked into the Chinese CBDC without explaining why the United States would ever choose to design its CBDC in a manner that mimics Chinese surveillance.

Privacy protections can be incorporated from the earliest development stages of a CBDC. This is what other privacy-focused jurisdictions have been doing with their CBDC development, like the European Union, because their constituents care about privacy, too.

In fact, research from the Atlantic Council has noted that CBDCs can be designed in a way that offer cash-like privacy through the use of zero-knowledge proofs, encryption, and other design features where a payment validator processes transactions but does not learn the identities of those involved without the permission of the parties.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I am struck by the way Republicans have so quickly changed their tune on how we should be promoting innovation. Here are just a couple of quotes from Republicans from the debate just yesterday.

Representative Davidson: ``For too long, we have pushed innovation and investment in digital asset projects overseas. . . . We finally have the chance to end this trend and solidify ourselves as the leaders in this industry.''

Mr. McHenry: ``We are falling behind Europe. This bill catches us up so that we do not lose out on innovation policy to the Europeans, to the folks in the U.K., to Singapore, to Japan, to Hong Kong, that all have regimes similar to what we are doing in this bill. . . . The next generation of internet technology is being written. It should be written by American innovators here in the United States. We can allow that innovation to pass us by, or we can seize the opportunity.''

The double standard is simply stunning.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, if privacy is the main concern motivating the supporters of this bill, then it is wholly unclear why the bill would ban wholesale CBDCs, which do not pose privacy concerns because they would not be used by consumers at all. They would be used by banks and other institutions to reduce transaction costs and improve payment speed in cross-border transactions with other institutions.

For these reasons, it was the American Bankers Association that advocated for the exclusion of wholesale CBDCs from this bill when it was marked up by our committee.

Supporters of this bill can't explain to the American people why a prohibition on a wholesale CBDC would protect their privacy so they resort to baseless fearmongering.

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Chair, according to an analysis written by Jaret Seiberg with TD Cowen, published today, May 23, 2024:

We do see risk in the House looking today to pass a related

bill that would ban the United States from launching a

digital dollar.

We view such a ban as negative for the global dominance of

U.S. banks and for the global role of the U.S. dollar. This

is because the ban would apply to wholesale, as well as

consumer use. That could give the euro or other currencies

that are digitized an edge in being used for global trade as

stablecoin digital dollars could lose value if there is a

redemption run, while a digital euro would not face that

threat.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, yesterday, we debated a Republican bill that would substantially deregulate the crypto industry, allowing most crypto to operate without a primary regulator and with virtually no regulation. Where was the concern about a consumer's privacy then?

Just yesterday, Republicans threw all of the existing protections for consumers, including privacy, out the window in the name of so-called crypto innovation and U.S. competitiveness. When it comes to the one crypto innovation that could impact our national security interests and economy, my colleagues want to stop that innovation in its tracks.

There is simply no reason to unilaterally tie our own hands in this respect and risk undermining the primacy of the U.S. dollar in the process, and it would be harmful to every American to make it harder for the Federal Reserve to combat inflation.

The stakes with this bill are incredibly high. The strength of the United States dollar, our ability to innovate and compete globally, our ability to impose sanctions and protect our interests abroad, and our ability to stop inflation are all well on the line.

Mr. Chair, I certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, H.R. 5403, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, which doubles down on the Republican efforts to prohibit CBDCs, which, if Republicans read their own bill, is already prohibited in the bill.

This sense of Congress only causes further confusion on how the bill should be interpreted as a whole by duplicating things that are already in the bill by wording them in a slightly different manner.

Experts from Atlantic Council have warned that: ``If this bill ever became law, the United States would be the only country in the world to have banned CBDCs. It would be a self-defeating move in the race for the future of money. It would undercut the national security role of the dollar as the decision would only accelerate other countries' development of alternative payment systems that look to bypass the dollar in cross-border transactions. This would make U.S. sanctions less effective.''

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans are focused on the bill's prohibition on CBDCs, but according to the nonpartisan CBO: ``The bill's prohibition on the Federal Reserve's use or issuance of a central bank digital currency could apply to bank reserves, which are a unit of value and a liability of the Federal Reserve.''

As the CBO also acknowledges, bank reserves are a primary tool for the Fed in conducting monetary policy. Prohibiting the Fed from holding bank reserves could very well take us backward, erasing all progress that the Fed has made so far in reducing inflation and achieving a soft landing. A vote for this bill is a vote for higher inflation and economic uncertainty.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is opposed by the following organizations: Americans for Financial Reform, Demand Progress, Public Citizen, and Take on Wall Street.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and the underlying bill,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose the Mooney amendment, which explicitly bans CBDC pilot programs. Like the last amendment we just considered, this amendment bans something that H.R. 5403 already bans. Oddly, this amendment would exacerbate the confusing drafting in H.R. 5403, by prohibiting something in two places but in slightly different ways.

In fact, all three of these amendments that we are considering for this bill overlap with existing provisions in the underlying bill, which leads me to believe that Republicans simply don't understand what their own bill does.

Let me again try to explain their own bill. This amendment and the bill both prohibit the Fed from conducting a study on how to design a central bank digital currency using a pilot program. In case the public is wondering, the New York Fed is currently conducting a pilot through its New York Innovation Center to test the benefits and drawbacks of a wholesale CBDC in collaboration with U.S. banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

This pilot does not mean that at the end the Fed will issue a CBDC or that Americans will have one. In fact, the Fed has made it abundantly clear that it wants Congress to authorize it to do so, but how is Congress going to be able to make this decision if we don't have any research as to how a CBDC could be designed that reflects our values?

Again, importantly, to counter misinformation from the other side of the aisle, wholesale CBDCs are not used by individual consumers. They are only used by institutions to transfer funds, so there are no consumer privacy issues with wholesale CBDCs because consumers are not directly involved.

If the point of this bill is to protect consumer privacy, the sponsor should have directed the Fed to ensure that it only tests a CBDC that does that.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this harmful amendment and H.R. 5403, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, it seems that Republicans remain focused on CBDCs when, as I have explained, the CBO has pointed out that the definition of CBDC in this bill can be interpreted to include bank reserves held by the Fed. Bank reserves are used as the settlement funds for interbank transactions that are facilitated by the Fed via its payment systems. This means that prohibiting the Fed's ability to hold bank reserves would make it difficult, if not impossible, to administer these payment systems likely causing a massive disruption to our banking and payment systems.

A vote for this bill is a vote to disrupt our banking systems. Republicans are refusing to acknowledge the broader impacts of this bill to undermine the Fed, disrupt our banking and payment

systems, and risk higher inflation, but the American people should know the truth.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, like the underlying bill, this amendment closes off opportunities for innovation and harming our influence around the world before we have even had a chance to fully study, test, and understand CBDCs.

This bill and amendment represent the wing of the Republican Party that is anti-science and, ironically, scared of the innovation they claim to like. Again, this amendment does not prohibit the issuance of a CBDC; it is prohibiting the research on how CBDCs work.

I can't stress how irresponsible it is for Congress to be passing blanket prohibitions on research based on unwarranted views. I can understand fears about potential outcomes, but I cannot understand fear of research.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and H.R. 5403, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, with this amendment, my Republican colleagues are really piling on to ensure the Fed is prohibited from even thinking about CBDCs. Yet again, this amendment is not adding anything substantive that isn't already in the bill. Instead, it is making worse the internal drafting inconsistencies in H.R. 5403.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this amendment, like the underlying bill, is dangerous and rash. It would prohibit the U.S. from even training for a race that has already begun.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues not to cave to baseless fear- mongering. I have already explained in depth how the privacy concerns from Republicans do not align with the actual facts. I simply urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1243 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1243, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti- Surveillance State Act. H.R. 5403 would be considered under a structured rule, and it also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the District of Columbia, to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation beginning with H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the rule provides for consideration of this legislation. As a member of the Financial Service Committee, we have spent countless hours trying to develop a responsible regulatory structure for blockchain technology and digital assets.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary as regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission have failed. Instead of developing a targeted and purposeful framework that would promote innovation and protect consumers, they have led with regulation by enforcement action.

This approach threatens the United States' leadership in the future of digital assets, a future that could better protect privacy, reduce business costs, and empower more Americans.

This flawed approach by the SEC has required congressional action, and FIT21 is the joint response of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. FIT21 establishes a framework consistent with existing law but also appropriate for the digital assets in question and their unique characteristics.

First, there is no current clear market structure for the regulation of digital assets in the United States. The SEC has merely been regulating by enforcement action.

This leaves digital asset innovators and consumers to play a guessing game. This not only stifles innovation but lends itself to the SEC picking winners and losers.

Meanwhile, there is currently no way for digital asset commodities to be registered or regulated by the CFTC. Chair Gensler has repeatedly said most digital assets are securities. However, by his own admission, we know that not all digital are securities. In fact, it is estimated that 70 percent or more are commodities.

This is among the most important reasons for the passage of FIT21. The SEC does not regulate commodities. It regulates securities. The CFTC does not regulate securities. It regulates commodities. The advent of digital assets, which can be either securities or commodities, has created a regulatory black hole that FIT21 seeks to remedy.

By defining digital asset commodities and securities and creating a clear regulatory market structure, FIT21 protects consumers and provides the regulatory clarity for digital asset developers to innovate.

The framework offered by FIT21 will give clear guidance to regulators and thus allow consumers to better judge digital assets for themselves, avoid scams, reduce instances of data theft, and lessen the potential for market manipulation.

FIT21 is good for our constituents and good for the country. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of us to support this important legislation.

Moving on to H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, I am proud of H.R. 5403 because I share the concerns of many of my colleagues about the consequences of a Federal Reserve Bank digital currency and what that could mean for our constituents and their privacy.

If issued, a government-controlled CBDC, central bank digital currency, would give Federal bureaucrats the ability to track every transaction Americans make, as well as the ability to block any transaction they so choose. This would be an unprecedented level of surveillance on the daily lives of everyday Americans, and we should all be concerned about the potential threats to individual rights and privacy.

A CBDC would give the government the power to shut off access to payments and freeze the bank accounts of law-abiding citizens and institutions for political reasons, just like we saw with the Canadian trucker protest or with Operation Choke Point.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in standing against the creation of a central bank digital currency by supporting this bill.

Finally, this rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

Americans are rightly concerned with election integrity. Free and fair elections are essential to any democracy. We all agree on that.

What we should also agree on is that noncitizens voting in elections undermines confidence in elections.

That is why the District of Columbia's Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act is so objectionable. It allows noncitizens to vote in D.C. elections, including illegal immigrants and foreign agents.

It goes without saying that these individuals, in particular, have interests that are at odds with our own. They literally represent the interests of other countries, including countries hostile to the United States. Why would we want to allow Russia or China or any foreign agent to vote on policies that impact the U.S. Capital? It defies logic, but that is exactly what D.C. has aspired to do.

My colleagues might ask why we even have an interest in the affairs of local laws in this respect. The answer is quite simple: D.C. has a unique and constitutional relationship with the United States Congress.

A lack of confidence in American elections anywhere threatens the confidence in American elections everywhere. It is incumbent upon us to protect the integrity of D.C. elections when the District's elected officials fail to do so and when they allow noncitizens and people with loyalty to other countries to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these three important pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the bury- the-head-in-the-sand approach is the very approach that Chairman Gensler has been taking with regard to the regulation of digital assets.

Our colleagues seem to be less concerned about getting a regulatory framework for consumer protection and are hurrying to put in a central bank digital currency for digital surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Americans have always been a leader in innovation and technology, particularly in financial services. In order for this to remain the case, we must support regulatory structures that continue to foster that same innovative spirit without sacrificing privacy while providing necessary consumer protections and preserving market integrity.

Before us is the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans.

H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century or FIT21, is a bill that delivers on all of these fronts for the future of digital assets here in the United States.

Speaking of protecting Americans, H.R. 5403, the Central Bank Digital Currency Anti-Surveillance State Act ensures that the government is never in a position to weaponize the financial system against the American people.

Innovation cannot come at the cost of sacrificing individual liberties. The issuance of a CBDC would only work to compromise Americans' rights and privacy.

Finally, H.R. 192 protects the integrity of American elections here in the District of Columbia, and we must prevent it. Congress must step in when local officials in the District fail to protect election integrity in this most basic sense. Noncitizens, including illegal immigrants and agents of foreign governments, must not have the ability to vote in American elections at any level anywhere. This is a basic issue of responsible governance.

To ensure government is responsive to and protective of the people it serves, elections must not include noncitizens or foreign actors.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5403.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today we are considering Majority Whip Tom Emmer's H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act. This bill is straightforward. It halts unelected bureaucrats from issuing a central bank digital currency, or CBDC.

We believe that a central bank digital currency would be detrimental to Americans' rights to financial privacy.

We have previously seen examples of governments around the world weaponizing the financial system against their own citizens.

For example, the Chinese Communist Party used a central bank digital currency to track spending habits of its citizens.

This data is being used to create a social credit system that rewards or punishes people based on their behavior.

This type of financial surveillance has no place in the United States. After all, we have the Bill of Rights, and they do not.

Concerningly, it appears that the current administration does not agree that financial surveillance has no place in the United States.

In 2022, the White House issued an executive order pushing for CBDC research and development. The corresponding report and the data related to the executive order the President issued does nothing to ease the concerns about financial snooping on citizens.

This is why the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is necessary. The bill requires authorizing legislation from Congress for the issuance of any central bank digital currency, ensuring that it must reflect American values and civil liberties protections.

If not open, permissionless, and private, a central bank digital currency is no more than a CCP-style surveillance tool waiting to be weaponized.

I thank my friend, Whip Emmer, for his work on spearheading this legislation, along with Representatives Hill and Mooney for their leadership on this issue. I also thank Representative Davidson for his commitment to financial privacy in a larger context.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the majority whip, a great leader in the Financial Services Committee and an original actor in the space of cryptocurrency.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, who had a great victory yesterday with 71 Democrats voting for his bill.

Madam Chair, in responding to the gentleman's arguments, I don't know where to begin. The civil liberties protections in the United States are evident. We have a court of law. We have a provision for law enforcement to go after bad actors. This bill has nothing to do with this. It is a direct question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should be able to track your money without having to go to the courts, just evident in the technology.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the vice chair of the Digital Assets Subcommittee and the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee. The gentleman is a great leader in digital assets and a thoughtful member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the chair of the Small Business Committee and a great leader for business in America, capitalism, and freedom.

Mr. Chair, I will note for the record a couple of key things.

Number one, this is private-sector innovation. That was yesterday's bill. Two-thirds of the House spoke in favor of private-sector innovation for digital assets. I know the ranking member of the committee did not, but we had 71 of her Democratic colleagues vote with almost all the Republicans yesterday for private-sector innovation on digital assets. I know she did not.

Today, what they want to do is have public-sector innovation. The regimes I spoke of yesterday, fostering private-sector innovation, are not going down the route of central bank digital currency. I want to note that for the record.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chair of the Science Committee and a great leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would note for the record that bow ties are cheaper than the long ties. I suggest the same to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), a leader in digital assets.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that this bill protects Americans' rights to financial privacy. That is the core of this.

It was my hope that this bill would be the base text for an amendment process by which we get my Democratic colleagues and committee to agree with that principle. Nonetheless, we have brought this bill to the floor. It ensures Congress, not the current or future administration, retains authority over any potential central bank digital currency.

This is Congress making a statement. We have the commitment. The current chair of the Federal Reserve says we will not have a consumer- facing central bank digital currency under his tenure in the Federal Reserve. That is the commitment of the current chair. That is not a commitment from the Federal Reserve.

We have a legal ruling that says that, for this to be a consumer- facing central bank digital currency, the Fed would have to come back to Congress to ask for those authorities.

Secretary Yellen, today, in news reports, says that it is indeed the case, in her view, that the Fed would have to come back to Congress to ask for authorities for central bank digital currency.

We are making an affirmative stance and statement as a Congress that that is not just the opinion of the current chair of the Federal Reserve and the current Secretary of the Treasury, but the stance of the United States Government and the United States Congress.

It is important that we recognize civil liberties are highly important, and our system in the United States is different than every system around the globe in protecting individuals' civil liberties from governmental encroachment. We should all agree that a central bank digital currency should reflect American values of privacy, individual sovereignty, and free market competitiveness.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a very important statement for us, just like the important statement we made yesterday when 71 of my Democratic colleagues voted with almost all the Republicans to put forward a regulatory framework for digital assets and cryptocurrency.

It was a great bipartisan outcome with a huge number of Democratic support, even though the administration said they don't want the bill, and even though the minority leader voted against us, and even though the ranking member on Financial Services whipped hard against the bill. We had 71 of my Democratic colleagues who saw innovation and consumer protection were at the core of that piece of legislation, and my colleagues voted in favor of it.

It is my hope today that the minority will see that we need civil liberties protections from any governmental encroachment in the financial realm, and I hope we can make a nice bipartisan statement today, as well.

Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of banning central bank digital currency. Why do we do this? As Congressman Hill pointed out, Congress clearly has the Article I authority under the United States Constitution over money, and we should exert that.

In the absence of exerting that with respect to central bank digital currency, the Federal Reserve is plowing right ahead. They are actively hiring programmers to write code to develop a central bank digital currency. To have colleagues say: Oh, well, they won't turn it on, to me is equivalent to having the Empire in Star Wars build the Death Star but promising not to turn it on.

Once it exists, it poses a threat, and they are not responding to Congress right now. They are not. They are not listening to our values that are reflected in our Constitution to protect our civil liberties. In fact, our colleagues are encouraging them not to. They are saying in their own words: Oh, we have to be more like China.

The version of central bank digital currency, the version that Project Hamilton is embracing, is the same version China is developing, and it is being developed all over the world with more than 100 countries looking at implementing a central bank digital currency all under the same model that the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank for the central bankers in Switzerland, is proposing, and it is the same creepy surveillance tool that the Chinese Communist Party is using, which is centrally managed, centrally filtered.

What definition is used here? Well, I am not sure that we could gather that from Mr. Sherman's comments, but it is the same definition that was used on March 9 in 2022 when the Biden administration released Executive Order 14067. The definition of H.R. 5403, this bill, is the same definition that we are addressing chosen by the Biden administration.

We want to ban that.

Madam Chair, we don't want to ban that just to establish it. We want to ban the development of it.

Another fallacy that they point out though is that this would turn off research. No, by all means, study it, find all the problems with it, and make sure that the people know: Don't go down this path.

That is the point of this bill.

If Congress uses Article I authority to subsequently set the parameters, as is our constitutional obligation, we could do that with a subsequent bill. The reality is, the Federal Reserve is not responding to dialogue. They need to respond to a law.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support Mr. Mooney's amendment.

The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act demonstrates House Republicans' unwavering and thorough conviction that the Federal Reserve must not issue or develop a central bank digital currency without expressed authorization from Congress.

While I support this bill wholeheartedly, I think it can go further with this amendment by being clear. Word weasels want to come up with phrases like pilot. Oh, we are not really doing that.

Yes, you are. The pilot project represents a first step that we could take, and, as you see, the Federal Reserve is spending time and resources building a team, actively hiring and staffing, and outsourcing for this. It is logically consistent that this pilot could be developed to something further.

Mr. Mooney's amendment will not only remove the CBDC pipeline the Fed is already building, but it will also ensure that any future efforts to test or research CBDC are approved by Congress.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment and this bill.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I applaud Congressman Emmer's hard work on getting this important piece of legislation to where it is today. I am encouraged that so many of my colleagues like Mr. Hill, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Barr, Mrs. Wagner, and subcommittee chairs on Financial Services are united on this. I wish that extended across the aisle because central bank digital currency is the creepiest surveillance tool known to man.

Every dystopian fiction out there whether ``Brave New World,'' ``1984,'' what I consider Scriptures, the ``Book of Revelation,'' shows the corruption of money from its proper use as a store of value and a means of exchange into a tool for coercion and control, something that can filter people's access to their own money and their ability to use it in a free society.

Why would we enable it? Everywhere it is depicted as evil. Why would we even tolerate that, but our own government is doing it. Frankly, the underlying text prevents the Federal Reserve from establishing a central bank digital currency, and this amendment is important because we should be clear: We don't want them to design it; we don't want them to build it; we don't want them to do development work on it; and we certainly don't want them to issue it. That authority is reserved for Congress.

There may come a point where our form of money looks different than it does today, but it should always have the characteristics of permissionless peer-to-peer payments like cash. Saying: But cash is one option in the system, doesn't cut it when the whole underlying architecture becomes permissioned, conditioned on your ability to be granted access to your own property from a central government.

This is a bad system, and it is great today for us to have the opportunity to ban it.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman correctly recognizes that we are piling on. We want it to be absolutely clear to the word weasels in the executive branch that try to find a way to scheme and maneuver and even, in spite of Supreme Court rulings, come up with new executive orders whether it is forgiving student debt, launching climate change initiatives, banning bump stocks, pistol braces, warrantless searches, you name it. They have got a way to get past the clear intent of Congress. We want to close every possible venue, absolutely.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think we have made it clear with the amendments, with our statements, and with the bill text that we need to ban central bank digital currency. Do not let them design, develop, or build a death star only to promise not to turn it on.

We need to prevent the Federal Reserve from doing this. All this should make it clear that that is the clear intent of Congress.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all of our colleagues to unite in support of this bill and this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to say. If you were to listen to my friend on the other side, you would think these bills are going to change the world the second the ink dries, but they are not.

This is just another week of wasted time, more of the same from the Republican leadership here in Congress that is completely out of touch with what the American people actually care about.

H.R. 192 is another GOP attempt to meddle in D.C. politics. They spend more time worrying about Washington, D.C., than they do about their own constituents.

It is astounding to me that the party that claims to care about small government and local control wants to have the Federal Government tell local leaders here in D.C. how to run their local elections.

Apparently, they are all for local control unless it is local control by Democrats--in which case, never mind.

To hear anybody on the Republican side talk about election integrity is rich, especially from a party that is filled with election deniers.

We are also here to consider H.R. 4763, a bill that provides an upper hand to the crypto industry instead of meaningfully addressing gaps in digital asset regulation.

Finally, we will meet on H.R. 5403, a bill that prevents the U.S. from exploring digital currency. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are afraid of innovation, but 130 countries representing 98 percent of global GDP are looking into digital currency. Maybe, just maybe, it is something we should look into as well.

Unfortunately, I think some of my friends on the other side want to go back to stone tablets. It is our job in Congress to address the privacy concerns, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend like the world isn't moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is all stunts instead of solutions, extremism over bipartisanship, and it is really a shame. This narrow majority could have given us a chance to work together in a bipartisan way, but instead, my friends over on the other side of the aisle have pandered to their most extreme Members over and over and over again.

They let the extremists kick out their own Speaker. They let the extremists dictate the agenda on the House floor. They let the extremists take down seven rule votes since January 2023, a stunning indictment of their ability to get anything done.

Speaking of indictments, Republicans are skipping their real jobs to take day trips up to New York to try to undermine Donald Trump's criminal trial.

Republicans have no time to work with Democrats but plenty of time to put on weird matching cult uniforms and stand behind President Trump with their bright red ties like pathetic props.

Maybe they want to distract from the fact that their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Maybe they don't want to talk about the fact that the leader of their party is on trial for covering up hush-money payments to a porn star for political gain, not to mention three other criminal felony prosecutions he is facing.

Now, I understand why my Republican friends want to distract from Donald Trump.

They don't want to talk about how Trump had the worse jobs record since the Great Depression, how he sold out our allies and empowered our adversaries.

They bring silly things like this to the floor to deflect blame and distract from the fact that they have no real vision, just division, and no real plans to make life better for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I was admonished for stating the simple fact that the former President was indicted by a Grand Jury and is on trial in a court of law. That is not my opinion. It is just the truth. I have a parliamentarian inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, has the Chair determined it is unparliamentary to state a fact?

Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable. Last week during debate, a Republican Member of this House said: ``Watch the former President of the United States being hauled into court day after day with a sham trial.'' He wasn't admonished. I just referenced the same trial, and I was.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask a further parliamentarian inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it correct that Members of Congress can mention the trial of the presumptive nominee for President, call it a sham and question the integrity of the judge, but a reference to the mere existence of that same trial without any characterization, that is out of order?

Mr. Speaker, I have one last parliamentary inquiry. Is this restriction originally founded at least in part on the principle in Jefferson's Manual that ``in Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against the king is against order,'' is that what this is about? I have Jefferson's Manual here.

So it is, in fact, based on what is in Jefferson's Manual.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he is not a king. He is not a presumptive king. He is not even the President. He is a presumptive nominee. And I know you are trying to do your job and follow precedent, but frankly, at some point it is time for this body to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation.

* * *