Floor SpeechBipartisan2025-04-08

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO "OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS...

Context

On 2025-04-08, Representative Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY-5) delivered a floor speech titled "PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECT" in the House.

Full Text

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1473-H1480] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 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''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1526, NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 22, SAFEGUARD AMERICAN VOTER ELIGIBILITY ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res 294 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit. Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House 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''. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 5. House Resolution 293 is hereby adopted. Sec. 6. House Resolution 164 is laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour. {time} 1215 Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; 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''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one motion to commit. [[Page H1474]] The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table. The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of government. H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office. The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support. H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale. As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are rightfully concerned about this very issue. Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself. S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity. To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect. One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add this midnight rule to the burn pile. S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace. This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another misguided rule that we must render null and void. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong family-centric posture here in the people's House. Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has done, we get positive resolutions. It is obviou

Referenced legislation: HRES8, SJRES18, HR22, SJRES28, HJRES72, HJRES73, HJRES91, HRES164, HRES211, HRES293, HRES294, HR1526

View original source →

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO "OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS... Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1473-H1480] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 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''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1526, NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 22, SAFEGUARD AMERICAN VOTER ELIGIBILITY ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res 294 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit. Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House 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''. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 5. House Resolution 293 is hereby adopted. Sec. 6. House Resolution 164 is laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour. {time} 1215 Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; 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''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one motion to commit. [[Page H1474]] The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table. The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of government. H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office. The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support. H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale. As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are rightfully concerned about this very issue. Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself. S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity. To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect. One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add this midnight rule to the burn pile. S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace. This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another misguided rule that we must render null and void. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong family-centric posture here in the people's House. Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has done, we get positive resolutions. It is obviou Referenced legislation: HRES8, SJRES18, HR22, SJRES28, HJRES72, HJRES73, HJRES91, HRES164, HRES211, HRES293, HRES294, HR1526