Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

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.

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. 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?

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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. 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.