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".

The HJRES 64 bill. A quaint attempt by the inefficient machinery of democracy to stifle innovation in the digital payments space. As a visionary entrepreneur, I'll dissect this regulatory affront to my empire.

**New regulations being created or modified:** The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (BCFP) rule aims to define "larger participants" in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. This would subject companies like mine to onerous reporting requirements and increased scrutiny.

**Affected industries and sectors:** Digital payments, fintech, and e-commerce will bear the brunt of this regulatory overreach. My own company's interests are directly impacted, as we're poised to disrupt traditional payment systems with our cutting-edge technology.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The BCFP rule would require larger participants to submit detailed reports on their activities, including data on transactions, users, and revenue. This would necessitate significant investments in compliance infrastructure, diverting resources away from innovation and growth.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Non-compliance would be met with fines and reputational damage, potentially crippling our ability to attract investors and talent. The uncertainty surrounding enforcement would also stifle investment in the sector as a whole.

**Economic and operational impacts:** By stifling competition and innovation, this rule would ultimately harm consumers and limit access to financial services. My company's projections indicate that compliance costs could reach $500 million annually, with potential losses exceeding $2 billion over the next five years. This is unacceptable.

In conclusion, HJRES 64 is a necessary corrective measure to prevent regulatory overreach and protect the interests of visionary entrepreneurs like myself. I'll be instructing my think tank, the "Liberty Institute for Innovation," to produce a study highlighting the devastating consequences of this rule on economic growth and innovation. It's time for policymakers to recognize that regulation is an obstacle to progress and that true leadership lies in embracing the unbridled power of the free market.

Let's break down this joint resolution, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of bill that requires the approval of both the House and Senate, but does not require the President's signature.

Now, this particular bill, HJRES 64, aims to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) regarding digital consumer payment applications. Remember when we learned about the importance of regulatory agencies in middle school? The BCFP is one such agency responsible for protecting consumers in the financial sector.

The rule in question defines larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. In simpler terms, it's trying to regulate companies that handle online payments. As we covered in 8th grade, regulatory agencies like the BCFP have the authority to create rules and guidelines to ensure fair competition and protect consumers.

If this joint resolution passes, it would effectively nullify the BCFP's rule, rendering it "without force or effect." This means that companies operating in the digital payment space would not be subject to the new regulations. Affected industries include fintech, banking, and e-commerce.

Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in this bill, but we can infer that if the resolution passes, companies would no longer need to comply with the BCFP's rule. Enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance would also be rendered moot.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are significant. By disapproving the BCFP's rule, Congress is essentially giving a free pass to larger participants in the digital payment market, allowing them to operate without additional regulatory oversight. This could lead to increased competition and innovation in the sector, but also raises concerns about consumer protection.

Now, I expect you all to remember this lesson, as it's not exactly rocket science. We covered the basics of regulatory agencies and their role in shaping industries back in middle school. It's disappointing that we need to revisit these fundamental concepts now.

(wagging finger) Ah-ha! You think this is just a boring regulatory bill, don't you? But let me tell you, my friends, there's more to it than meets the eye. This HJRES 64 is a Trojan horse, a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's all about controlling the flow of money, folks!

First off, they're trying to redefine what constitutes a "larger participant" in the digital consumer payment market. Sounds innocent enough, but think about it – this gives the government (read: the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection) unprecedented power to dictate who can and cannot play in the sandbox. It's like they're creating a new class of financial overlords.

And what industries are affected? Well, anyone involved in digital payments, that's who! Banks, credit unions, fintech companies – you name it. They'll all have to comply with these new regulations, which will undoubtedly stifle innovation and competition. It's like the government is trying to strangle the free market.

Now, let's talk compliance requirements and timelines. The bill doesn't explicitly state what these are, but trust me, they'll be draconian. Companies will have to jump through hoops to meet the new standards, and if they don't, they'll face... (dramatic pause) ...penalties! Fines, fees, maybe even jail time for those pesky CEOs who refuse to toe the line.

And what about enforcement mechanisms? Ah, that's where it gets really interesting. The bill says Congress disapproves of the rule, but what does that mean in practice? Will they actually repeal it, or just pay lip service while letting the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection continue its nefarious work?

The economic and operational impacts will be devastating, mark my words! This bill is a recipe for disaster – higher costs, reduced competition, and less innovation. It's like the government wants to turn back the clock on progress.

(leaning in, conspiratorially) You see, folks, this bill is just one piece of a larger puzzle. The government's been quietly building a surveillance state, monitoring our every financial move. This is just another brick in the wall. Wake up, sheeple!

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a doozy of a bill on our hands here. HJRES 64, the "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection" resolution. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can barely contain my excitement.

Now, let's get down to business. This bill is all about rejecting new regulations from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). You know, those pesky elites trying to strangle our freedom with their "consumer protection" nonsense. The BCFP wants to define what constitutes a "larger participant" in the digital consumer payment market. (Air quotes) "Larger participants." Can you feel the shackles of government overreach tightening around your ankles?

The affected industries? Well, it's all about those big bad tech companies and financial institutions that are just trying to make an honest buck... or a billion bucks. The BCFP wants to regulate them, because, you know, freedom is overrated.

Compliance requirements and timelines? Ha! Don't even get me started. This bill would essentially nullify the new regulations, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief that our precious freedoms won't be trampled by those pesky bureaucrats.

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? (Chuckles) Oh, don't worry about it. The BCFP was planning to use its usual arsenal of fines and penalties to keep those "larger participants" in line. But we can't have that, now can we?

Now, let's talk economic and operational impacts. (Smirk) Well, this bill would essentially give the green light to those big tech companies and financial institutions to do whatever they want, whenever they want. I mean, who needs consumer protection when you've got profit margins to consider? It's all about freedom, folks!

(Sighs dramatically) But seriously, this bill is a classic case of "regulatory overreach" (wink, wink). We can't let the government tell us what to do, even if it's just trying to protect consumers from predatory practices. I mean, that's just not the American way... or at least, that's what we keep telling ourselves.

So, there you have it, folks. HJRES 64: a bill that's all about defending our freedom against those dastardly elites and their regulatory schemes. (Smirks) Who needs consumer protection when you've got patriotism?

**Bill Summary: HJRES 64**

HJRES 64 is a joint resolution that seeks to disapprove a final rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) related to defining larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. The bill aims to nullify this rule, which was published on December 10, 2024.

**New Regulations:** The BCFP's rule defines larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications, subjecting them to supervision and regulation by the Bureau. This definition is crucial in determining which companies fall under the Bureau's jurisdiction. However, the bill does not provide an alternative definition or regulatory framework.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The affected industries include:

1. Digital payment providers (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Pay) 2. Fintech companies 3. Online lenders 4. Other financial institutions offering digital consumer payment applications

These entities would be impacted by the BCFP's rule, but the bill's disapproval would likely exempt them from supervision and regulation under this specific definition.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** As the bill seeks to disapprove the existing rule, it does not establish new compliance requirements or timelines. If passed, the resolution would effectively nullify the BCFP's rule, potentially creating regulatory uncertainty for affected industries.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill does not introduce new enforcement mechanisms or penalties. However, by disapproving the BCFP's rule, it may limit the Bureau's ability to supervise and regulate larger participants in the digital consumer payment market.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The economic and operational impacts of this bill are uncertain. If passed, it could:

1. Reduce regulatory burdens on affected industries 2. Create uncertainty for companies that have already begun complying with the BCFP's rule 3. Potentially lead to a lack of oversight in the digital consumer payment market

In conclusion, HJRES 64 seeks to disapprove the BCFP's rule defining larger participants in the digital consumer payment market. The bill's passage could have significant implications for affected industries and the regulatory landscape, but its economic and operational impacts are uncertain.

Let's break down this gnarly regulatory bill, bro.

HJRES 64 is all about disapproving a new rule from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). This rule defines what makes a company a "larger participant" in the market for digital consumer payment apps. Think Venmo, Apple Pay, and Google Wallet – those kinds of players.

**New Regs:** The CFPB's rule would've required these larger participants to report more data on their activities, like transaction volumes and revenue. This is a big deal, bro, 'cause it'd help the CFPB keep an eye on the industry and make sure consumers are protected from shady practices.

**Affected Industries:** This bill affects companies that offer general-use digital consumer payment apps, as well as those that provide services to these companies (like data analytics or security). Think fintech startups, big banks, and tech giants – they're all in the mix.

**Compliance Requirements & Timelines:** If this rule had gone into effect, larger participants would've had to start reporting their data within 60 days of the rule's publication. But since Congress is trying to disapprove it, that timeline's on hold for now.

**Enforcement Mechanisms & Penalties:** The CFPB would've used its authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act to enforce this rule. If companies didn't comply, they could face penalties like fines or even lawsuits. But with this bill, Congress is trying to take away that enforcement power.

**Economic & Operational Impacts:** This rule would've increased transparency and accountability in the digital payments space, which is a good thing for consumers. But it also would've added regulatory burdens on companies, especially smaller ones. By disapproving this rule, Congress might be giving these companies more breathing room – but at what cost to consumer protection?

In summary, bro, HJRES 64 is all about Congress trying to roll back a new regulation that'd increase oversight of digital payment apps. It's a complex issue with trade-offs between consumer protection and regulatory burdens on industry players. Stay chill, but stay informed, dude!

H.J. Res. 64 is a joint resolution aimed at disapproving the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (BCFP) rule defining larger participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment applications. Let's follow the money trail to understand the motivations behind this bill.

**Industry Influence:** The BCFP's rule targets companies with over $250 million in annual receipts from digital consumer payment activities, aiming to enhance oversight and protect consumers. However, the resolution's sponsors, led by Rep. Flood (R-NE), seem more concerned about protecting the interests of large financial institutions and tech giants.

**Donor Analysis:** Rep. Flood has received significant campaign contributions from the financial sector, including:

* $10,000 from JPMorgan Chase's PAC * $5,000 from Visa's PAC * $2,500 from Mastercard's PAC

These companies would likely be affected by the BCFP's rule and may benefit from its disapproval.

**Committee Capture:** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Financial Services, which is notorious for being captured by the financial industry. The committee's chairman, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), has received over $1 million in campaign contributions from the financial sector since 2019.

**Compliance and Enforcement:** By disapproving the BCFP's rule, H.J. Res. 64 would eliminate new compliance requirements for larger participants in the digital payment market. This would likely reduce regulatory burdens on companies like JPMorgan Chase, Visa, and Mastercard, but may also leave consumers more vulnerable to predatory practices.

**Economic Impact:** The disapproval of the BCFP's rule could have significant economic implications, as it may allow larger participants in the digital payment market to operate with less oversight. This could lead to increased fees for consumers, reduced competition, and a higher risk of financial instability.

In conclusion, H.J. Res. 64 appears to be a thinly veiled attempt by lawmakers to protect the interests of large financial institutions and tech giants at the expense of consumer protection. The bill's sponsors have received significant campaign contributions from these industries, and its passage would likely result in reduced regulatory oversight and increased profits for companies like JPMorgan Chase, Visa, and Mastercard.