H.R. 1526 – No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; H.R. 22 – Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; 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’’.
2025-03-31
Loading video...
Source: Congress.gov
Summary
The Rules Committee convened to consider four measures: H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which requires proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote; H.R. 1526, which limits district court injunctive relief; and two Congressional Review Act resolutions to nullify Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules that mandate overdraft fee caps and regulate digital payment apps. Witnesses from the Judiciary and Financial Services Committees emphasized concerns over voter suppression, particularly for married women and rural voters, and criticized the rules as disproportionate and counter to consumer protection. The panel debated the legality and fairness of expanding documentation requirements for voting, the potential impact on marginalized communities, and the effectiveness of current safeguards, with bipartisan debate highlighting the legislative challenges of balancing election security with access and equity.
Participants
Transcript
Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Before we proceed with our hearing, we have a housekeeping matter to take care of regarding the appointment of members to our subcommittees. My understanding is that the assignments of the subcommittees are satisfactory to all. Therefore, without objection, The following members are appointed to serve on the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House. For Republicans, Ms. Fischbach is chair, in addition to Ms. Fischbach, Mr. Scott, Mr. Griffith, and Mr. Jack. For Democrats, Ms. Scanlon is ranking member, and Mr. McGovern. For the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, the following members are appointed. For Republicans, Mr. Langworthy is Chair, in addition to Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy, and Mrs. Houchin. For Democrats, Ms. Ledger-Fernandez is a ranking member, and Mr. Neguse. Hearing no further comments, we'll now proceed with our hearing. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider four separate measures. H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res 18, S.J. Res 28. 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's no debate about it. Republicans do not thumb our noses at election integrity, for we understand that Americans deserve free, transparent, and fair elections.
The SAVE Act presents us with an opportunity to add additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It's an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support. In 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 would limit the authority of district courts 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. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. If it is not remedied in a common sense and expeditious fashion, these exercises and partisanship will do further irreparable damage to the nation and to the confidence of Americans in our own justice system. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself. SJ Res 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity. To put it simply, this CFPB's own rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect. This rule mandates that extensions of overdraft credit offered by very large financial institutions adhere to consumer protections required of similarly situated products unless the overdraft fee is at or below the institution's costs and losses.
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 a lack of overdraft protection. It's time to add this midnight rule to the burn pile. SJ 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. There's no legitimate basis for this rule. It's purely an exercise in exerting more government control. This rule is billed as a consumer protection mechanism, but what it really does is misclassify 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, quote, consumer protection, end quote. This is yet another misguided rule that will rightly repeal. With that, I look forward to today's discussion. I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And let's not beat around the bush.
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.