Congressman Tom Emmer Tackles the War on Crypto

Bankless Nation, is there a war on crypto? That is the question that we pose today. We have House Majority Whip Congressman Tom Emmer to weigh in on that question. A few things to look out for in this episode. Number one, we ask Representative Emmer if the U.S. has declared a war on crypto.

You'll see how he responds. Number two, we talk about Operation Chokepoint 2.0. Is this an effort to toke out crypto in the United States? Number three, we talk about this issue. Is it bipartisan? Is it Democratic? Is it Republican? Who is supporting crypto in Congress? Number four, we talk about the ability for the United States legislator to pass common sense legislation. Can we actually do that as a country? And number five, we talk about how crypto issues factor into the 2024 elections and what we, as bankless listeners, can do to support those efforts. Unfortunately, David was unable to make this conversation. He had some internet issues, so it's just myself and the representative today. But a few disclaimers before we get into this episode, because I can hear some of you saying, oh no, Bankless has just got political. They're having a politician on the podcast. What's going on? I want to say this at the outset. Bankless is not a political podcast that divides on red-blue party lines. We have no political affinity to any party in the United States or any other country. What we do care about is the values of crypto, values like decentralization, autonomy, and power to the people that underlie this revolutionary technology. And so to the extent that those values are political, we get political, but we don't divide on party lines. We'll continue to give voice to these crypto-native values no matter what political party they come from. So that means we're open to conversations spanning the aisle from Senator Cynthia Lumis and Ted Cruz. They're welcome here. So is AOC and Elizabeth Warren. We want to have the conversation with everyone. For my own part, I see value for both the right and the left in crypto and supporting both progressive and conservative values. This conversation is important to have. Guys, we're going to get right into the episode with Representative Emmer. But before we do, we want to thank the sponsors that made this possible, including Bankless Nation. We are excited about our next guest. Representative Tom Emmer is a U.S. representative in Minnesota and is serving as the House Majority Whip as of this year. That makes him one of the highest ranking members of the U.S. House of Representatives. He's also been an outspoken advocate of crypto. He's rung the alarm bell several times on what seems to be maybe a politically driven debanking of crypto in the United States of America. Representative Emmer, welcome back to Bankless. It's great to have you on again.

Great to be with you, Ryan.

Uh so we don't I I think some bankless listeners might not know what the function of a whip actually is, Representative Emmer. Like, not to take us back to Civic's basics, but but maybe start with that. So what do you do as a whip? What does the role actually entail?

So the Speaker is in charge of everything in the House, and in fact, in charge of the Capitol grounds. I mean literally everything.

The majority leader is the one that builds a calendar, right? That person works with committee chairs. Not only does uh the majority leader's office build a uh legislative calendar for the year,

but then they actually build a calendar of what is ready to come to the floor. But

the beauty of it is we're number three by the whip or uh

Well, it is the WIP, the majority whip.

And our job, the beauty of it right now, is uh we only have 222 members. It takes 218 to pass things. So literally, guys, everything has to come through the whip's office. When the uh

majority leader is building out a calendar,

they need to come to us to make sure that they've got the uh the votes that are necessary, that all the problems have been solved, if there are any,

or questions, and that uh they can get it across the floor. And that's our job to make sure that.

These things, once they hit the floor, they actually get the votes they need to come off the floor. And we've had now close to 160 votes since the uh since this Congress started. Uh and I'm sure that it won't be unblemished all the way through, but we haven't lost a vote yet.

So, Representative Emmer, it sounds like the whip is uh someone has more responsibility in terms of you know setting the agenda for Congress. I'm curious, how high up is crypto on the agenda in in you know March of 2023?

It is uh at the top of mind, uh, as you and uh as some of your uh

uh uh audience probably know if you paid attention to what I've been doing, but it's also

uh one of Patrick McHenry's uh top uh issues. So it makes it easier for me.

Because there are members of the committee. French Hill from Arkansas has been made uh subcommittee chair of the new

digital assets subcommittee. And by the way, that should tell you what kind of a priority it is. Because for the first time ever,

uh the Financial Services Committee created an actual digital assets subcommittee to start addressing with these issues. And frankly, from my perspective, it's long overdue. But

there are other priorities so people out there understand.

This is about making sure the economy

is once again growing the way it should, which, by the way, I believe crypto is a big part of.

It's about safety and security, both here at home.

You know, domestic crime has to be brought under control. And then around the globe, you've got a lot of uh

a lot of flare ups going on in the uh the world today

uh that can present uh global issues. Uh and then obviously uh we've got some issues with our uh both borders, but primarily our southern border and the fentanyl crisis.

Uh but crypto when it comes to the the economic uh issues, I believe it's towards the top of the list. But again, that's that's me.

So, Congressman Emmer, as as we get into the the material on the subjects today, I gotta start with this question because I think a lot of American citizens and uh companies located in the United States are feeling like the United States government is disconnected from our community and from our industry. And the question has been raised is there a war on crypto in the United States? I I wouldn't have previously, you know, uh said those words, but it feels like this year crypto has increasingly been under attack in various ways that I'm sure we'll explore. Does the US hate crypto, Representative Emmer? What's going on here? Can you help us make sense of this?

Well, I I mean that's a that's a much broader question. If you're talking about U.S. citizens who believe in the right to self determine, who believe in liberty and uh,

you know, the uh fact that their government's supposed to work for them, we love it.

Right? We love uh Web3, the ownership economy, the idea that we can do business directly with one another and we don't have to have intermediaries. Uh, not that we'll never need them, but uh we get to choose them, right?

Uh when you talk about the US, uh, Ryan, what I would define that as is the uh centralized bankers and government.

Uh, those are the ones uh let's just go back to 2008 when they messed up this economy the last time,

uh, because their uh their poor monetary policy led us to a place where.

A lot of people suffered. A lot of people were hurt. That's when you have the Satoshi white paper that shows up. That's when the Bitcoin experience begins. And I believe a lot of these central bankers, both here and around the globe, but let's just focus on the U.S. Some of our biggest central bankers, not just the Fed, but some in the uh in the private sector, were looking at people that were doing this Bitcoin thing. And I guarantee you, Ryan, they were going, oh, look at those kids. Isn't that cute? Playing with their virtual money. You know, it's like it's like a video game that they're doing. And then it goes on for about two, three, four years. They go,

Uh-oh,

this thing's actually picking up steam. There might be something here.

And so then they tried to kill it, in my opinion. Their goal was to try and stop it. They couldn't.

So guess what? The last few years they've been trying to swallow it up. This is the discussion about CBDCs. This is now the discussion about FedNow. I mean, their whole thing was let's get you people and your audience, let's get you on board with central banking in the digital age, which is nothing more than a surveillance tool for a government. But guess what?

There are too many of us that say no. There are too many of us that are going to stand in the way. So I look at what's happened in just the past few weeks. There definitely a lot of people talk about, is there a choke point 2.0 uh trying to debank uh crypto?

Well, you gotta tell me.

Is this a coincidence that we lost uh Silvergate, uh Silicon Valley, and Signature uh all within a matter of days, uh a couple of weeks? Uh I don't think there is any coincidence, gentlemen. Uh, the closure of crypto and tech-friendly banks like Silvergate Signature and uh Silicon Valley

have left the crypto industry largely unbanked. And I think the attitude of our government regulators right now, I think the attitude of our cabinet members, whether it's the uh Treasury, whether it's the Fed, uh, whether it's the uh uh the SEC, uh CFTC,

Is all taking a negative aspect or view of what we're trying to do.

And as a result, I think they're risking ascending the innovation we've been trying to protect right here in this country, right across the ocean.

So, Representative Emmer, you're paint you're painting a picture here and something that we've talked about on Banklists a number of times, this idea of an Operation Choke Point 2.0, but you're also painting this picture of not just a choking off of crypto, but actually a co-opting of crypto as well, or maybe uh the digital aspects of crypto, not the ethos aspects of freedom and autonomy and self-sovereignty. I want to ask you about this uh operation choke point, though, a little bit more. So on March 15th, you tweeted out that you sent a letter to the FDIC Chairman Groomberg regarding reports that the FDIC is weaponizing recent instability in the banking sector to purge legal crypto activity from the United States. And we've got the letter, we'll include it in uh in a link in the show notes. What are you concerned about here? So, is this about the the choking off of a maybe a Silvergate, maybe a signature bank? What are you writing to the head of the FDIC about this? What are your stated concerns?

Well, we've seen statements from individuals across the industry, including former House Financial Services Chair, Barnick Frank.

The co-author, by the way, of the Dodd-Frank Act, highlighting the targeted nature

of the regulatory efforts of this administration to single out financial institutions and I believe to send a message to get people to move away from crypto.

I mean, there are double standards when it comes to uh whether financial institutions can uh custody crypto, not using it to leverage against it or anything, but just to custody it. There's different messages coming out of the Fed, coming out of the SEC. The SEC's been very aggressive. And by the way,

Uh, two sources, you might have seen this because I uh I mentioned it in an interview last week.

Two sources told Reuters

that quote, any buyer of signature must agree to give up all the crypto business in the bank.

Think about that for a second, Ryan. I if if that's not government putting its heavy hand on the scale and doing it in a way that uh uh to the detriment of crypto or or people that are uh

You know, interested in crypto, I don't know what is. And then you talked about uh Marty uh uh Greenberg, Chair uh Greenberg.

Uh

the FDIC press release

uh said that signatures, crypto depositors,