Ritchie Torres (D-NY)
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02: Deceptive Marketing Practices About the Speed or Cost of Sending a Remittance Transfer".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution aims to provide congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The rule in question concerns the withdrawal of a previous rule regarding "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02: Deceptive Marketing Practices About the Speed or Cost of Sending a Remittance Transfer." By passing this resolution, Congress intends to ensure that the rule submitted by the Bureau shall have no force or effect.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Removing oversight on remittance transfer marketing may harm low-income households that rely on these services.
- Scored -3
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
Since remittance transfers are heavily used by Hispanic communities, the lack of oversight on deceptive practices could disproportionately impact this group.
- Scored -3
Would immigrants be better off under this?
The reduction in protections against deceptive marketing for remittance transfers specifically impacts immigrants who frequently send money abroad.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- There are no specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups listed within the provided text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no specific negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups listed within the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Since remittance transfers are heavily used by Hispanic communities, the lack of oversight on deceptive practices could disproportionately impact this group. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The reduction in protections against deceptive marketing for remittance transfers specifically impacts immigrants who frequently send money abroad. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Removing oversight on remittance transfer marketing may harm low-income households that rely on these services. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The withdrawal of consumer protection guidelines may lead to increased costs or less transparency for middle-income remittance users.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The resolution prevents the enforcement of a circular intended to address deceptive marketing regarding the speed or cost of remittance transfers, thereby reducing consumer protections.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution limits the regulatory authority of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to issue guidance on deceptive marketing practices.
- 5/4/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.