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"

On 2025-04-09, Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA-32) delivered a floor speech titled "DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO "DEFINING LARGER PARTICIPANTS" in the House.

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"

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 64 (Wednesday, April 9, 2025) [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. 

Referenced legislation: SJRES28, SJRES28, HRES284, HRES294