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''
Floor Speech
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Garcia).
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, 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source