House Fast-Tracks Votes to Overturn CFPB Rules on Overdraft Fees and Digital Payments, Limits Debate Time to One Hour

This resolution is the legislative equivalent of putting four different policy debates on the express lane, waiving all the usual speed limits and procedural checks. It’s a rule set up by the House to fast-track votes on four major items, including two joint resolutions aimed at striking down recent consumer protection rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The Consumer Protection Showdown

The most immediate real-world impact centers on two CFPB rules that are now on the chopping block. First, the House is setting up a vote to disapprove the CFPB’s rule on overdraft lending by very large financial institutions. If this disapproval resolution passes, it would undo the CFPB’s efforts to regulate how the biggest banks handle those costly overdraft fees. For you, the customer, this means the potential for less oversight on how much your bank can charge you when you briefly dip into the red. Second, the resolution sets up a vote to reject a CFPB rule defining “Larger Participants” in the digital payment app market. This rule was aimed at bringing major apps like Venmo or Cash App under the same regulatory scrutiny as traditional banks. If Congress scraps this rule, it could slow down efforts to regulate these increasingly common ways people manage their money, potentially affecting consumer protections for millions of users who rely on these apps every day.

The Procedural Power Play

How are they doing this so fast? By waiving nearly every procedural hurdle imaginable. The resolution explicitly waives all “points of order,” which are the standard objections members can raise to slow things down or force debate on technicalities. For each of the four items—the two CFPB rule disapprovals, the bill limiting court injunctions (H.R. 1526), and the bill requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration (H.R. 22)—the debate time is strictly capped at one hour, split evenly between the majority and minority parties. Think of it: complex legislation that affects everything from your bank account to judicial authority gets less time for debate than a lunch meeting. This structure severely limits the ability of the minority party or anyone opposed to the bills to offer amendments or challenge the content, ensuring that these measures move straight to a final up-or-down vote with minimal friction.

Limiting Courts and Changing Voter Rules

Beyond the financial regulations, this rule also accelerates two other significant policy changes. H.R. 1526, which is now fast-tracked, seeks to limit the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions. An injunction is a court order that immediately stops someone—or the government—from taking an action. Limiting this power could make it much harder for citizens or organizations to get quick relief from federal courts when challenging new laws or regulations they deem harmful. The other bill, H.R. 22, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. While proponents argue this secures the integrity of the vote, for regular citizens, particularly those who are newly naturalized or lack easy access to documentation, this could significantly increase the administrative burden and complexity of simply registering to participate in democracy. This is a classic example of a procedural resolution concentrating power: it allows the majority to quickly push through a specific policy agenda, but it does so by sacrificing the thorough deliberation and debate that usually characterize major legislative decisions.