We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
Providing for consideration of 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"; providing for consideration of 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"; providing for consideration of 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; providing for consideration of 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; and for other purposes.
House floor actionsConsidered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1473-1480)
Library of CongressPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 213 - 211 (Roll no. 92). (text: CR H1473: 2)
Floor Vote
Agreed To
House floor actionsThe House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-50, by Ms. Foxx.
Introduced
Committee
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.
What Congress Said
Members who spoke about this bill on the floor, in their own words from the Congressional Record.
Republicans27 spoke
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up 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,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
I rise in support of the SAVE Act. The American people are done messing around with a woke, weak-kneed system that lets our elections get hijacked. I am fighting for them, for me, and for every American who knows that our vote is sacred. It is time to lock it down with citizens only.
Let me set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. This resolution of disapproval doesn't increase fees, as my friends on the other side of the aisle insinuate. In fact, what it does do is it invalidates a regulation that will take this critical lifeline away from many of my constituents.
The Bureau's overdraft rule would implement government price controls over a product that has proven necessary for consumers to make day-to-day purchases.
I rise in strong support of the resolution as a woman and as the chairwoman of the Republican Women's Caucus, not only for election integrity but clearly literacy because Democrats have not read the resolution. That much is clear.
In our branch of government, we had Democrats in both bodies of the legislative branch who proposed legislation just a Congress ago saying this is a problem we ought to deal with. Their legislation looked a lot like part of this bill, three-judge panels. Now, we have Republicans saying the same thing.
There are 677 Federal district judges, and they are just that, judges. They are not the President of the United States. They are not the person who put his name on the ballot and ran nationwide, got 77 million votes, won the electoral college, and is head of the executive branch. They are judges, district judges.
While States are the primary authority on how elections are conducted on election day, it is our role here in Congress to ensure that we support them, provide resources to them, and promote uniformity and best practices across the country.
Four Justices have signaled their readiness to do so. Yet, without a fifth, Congress is left with no alternative but to act on its own authority. With this bill, it does.
One citizen, one vote. It is the pillar of our democracy and you would think that of all the issues that we debate on this hallowed floor, this is the one. This is the one that brings everybody together, the pillar of our democracy, one citizen, one vote. Everybody is on the same team.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution in defense of financial institutions that choose to extend overdraft lifelines to their customers who need them.
I rise today in support of the resolution disapproving of the rule submitted by the CFPB relating to overdraft lending very large financial institutions.
Historically, district court rulings only applied to the parties before the court, but over the past 15 years, district courts have increasingly asserted that their rulings apply nationwide, interfering with the legitimate Article II powers of the President of the United States.
Of course, this isn't radical at all. It is common sense. I think the vast majority of Americans would be shocked to learn that it elicits any opposition at all.
I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution to overturn the CFPB's final rule targeting larger participants in general-use digital consumer payment applications.
I rise in support of this resolution to overturn a ludicrous rule which imposes government price controls on financial institutions across the country.
I rise in support of the resolution to overturn the CFPB's overdraft rule. This is a classic midnight maneuver from the previous administration that ignored market realities.
I rise in complete opposition to yet another harmful bill put forth by Republicans, S.J. Res. 18, a resolution to allow the biggest banks to increase fees on their customers. You heard me right. I said this resolution will increase bank fees, and it will
The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood, and voting by proxy.
Moreover, the SAVE Act is not actually meant to prevent noncitizens from voting. The SAVE Act is really about silencing Americans. This bill is about disenfranchising Americans, not noncitizens, but Americans, Americans like James Wilson.
I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a major policy crisis taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and that sounded pretty good to me because we are drowning in crises.
I will take 1 minute or 2 to talk about the other regulation because, after Members vote against the first of these resolutions, you are going to feel so good that you are going to want to vote against the second one.
That promissory note was that he told the American people on day one, inflation would go down. Prices would go down on day one, he said. Instead, what the President has done is, unleashed an economic chaos on the American people.
I want to start by saying welcome back to my friends across the aisle. It is really nice to have them back here in the people's House, especially after last week.
I appreciate efforts to ensure that our elections are safe and free from foreign interference and that only U.S. citizens can vote. However, one of my concerns with this bill is, as it is written, it does not allow for mail or online voter registration.
I rise today in opposition to this bill, which is simply an attempt by House Republicans to intimidate judges who issue rulings that they simply don't like.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with important amendments to this bill.
I rise today in strong opposition to the House Republican's so-called SAVE Act, the most restrictive voting law to be considered by this body in decades.
This bill would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions even when the policies they find unlawful or unconstitutional have nationwide effects. That would be as if Brown v. Board of Education applied only to Brown.
We need our courts to continue to serve as a bulwark of democracy against the Trump administration's flood of illegal actions. That is why I rise today in opposition to this bill.
I am here to commemorate liberation month. A week ago, Liberation Day brought us President Trump's tariffs which will liberate a typical American family from 3,800 of their hard-earned dollars each year, according to one study.
This bill will make it more difficult to register to vote, and it will prevent millions of American citizens, including married women who change their name and rural Americans, from exercising their right to vote. It creates an enormous and expensive unfunded mandate on election offices, and for what?
These injunctions were celebrated by the other side when they stopped actions under the previous Democratic administrations. Yet, now that President Trump is in office, this bill exists to help the President do whatever he wants, even if it is unconstitutional.
All of my colleagues today are speaking about this bill, and it is personal to me because I represent Alabama. I represent the birthplace of the civil rights movement.
That is why I oppose this measure to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection--emphasis on ``Protection''--Bureau rule that caps overdraft fees by banks at $5.
Free and fair elections are the foundation of any functioning democracy. The SAVE Act is a blatant attempt to undermine our election system, weaken American democracy, and unfairly suppress millions of eligible citizens from voting.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, known as CFPB, was created for one reason: to protect everyday people from getting ripped off, especially when tech companies start acting like banks.
I rise to explain why new moms cannot proxy vote. The issue is very simple, and the answer is even simpler to understand. It is because men don't have children.
My constituents are struggling with high costs and inflation, and more and more families are living paycheck to paycheck, and still the supporters of this bill are trying to increase their fees? I can't and I won't get behind that. It is out of touch.
I rise today in strong opposition to the SAVE Act. While everyday Americans are struggling from the fallout of Trump's disastrous tariff policies, Republicans are pushing through a bill that strips Americans' constitutional right to vote, a vote that was hard won and for which many died.
This bill is not about judicial efficiency or fairness; it is about power, raw, political power. The people who once cheered nationwide injunctions when they served their agenda now want to eliminate them because judges had the audacity to hold this administration accountable.
I rise to oppose the SAVE Act. The bottom line is that the SAVE Act suppresses the votes of women; Black, Brown, and indigenous people; veterans; and working-class Americans.
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.