H. Griffith (R-VA)
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.
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Failed
Came to a vote and did not get the votes it needed.
Usually nothing. A measure can be brought back, but one that failed on the floor rarely returns in the same Congress.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Failed 206–222
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution provides for the consideration of several different legislative items in the House. It includes provisions to consider a joint resolution to disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule regarding overdraft lending at very large financial institutions. It also provides for the consideration of a joint resolution to disapprove a rule regarding the definition of larger participants in the digital consumer payment application market. Additionally, the resolution covers the consideration of H.R. 1526, which seeks to limit district court authority regarding injunctive relief. Finally, it provides for the consideration of H.R. 22, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of citizenship for federal election registration.
Yes
- Scored +1
Does this make elections run better?
Requiring proof of citizenship is intended by proponents to increase the integrity of the electoral process.
- Scored +1
Would business owners be better off under this?
Disapproving BCFP rules may reduce the regulatory burden on financial institutions.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Limiting the ability of district courts to provide injunctive relief may impact due process and legal recourse.
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The disapproval of BCFP rules on overdrafts and digital payments may reduce consumer protections in financial services.
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
Limiting district court authority for injunctive relief reduces the power of the judiciary relative to other branches.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to adopt the resolution A resolution is one chamber speaking for itself — setting its own rules, taking a position, honouring someone — and it never goes to the President. Agreeing to it is the whole decision. Failed 206 yes · 222 no
04/01/2025 · Roll call 87 · recorded as “On Agreeing to the Resolution”
- The House: a vote to stop debate and move to the decision A House procedural vote that closes off further debate and amendments. It is about the schedule, not the substance, and it usually falls along party lines. Previous question agreed to 215 yes · 213 no
04/01/2025 · Roll call 86 · recorded as “On Ordering the Previous Question”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Limiting Court Authority: H.R. 1526 aims to amend title 28 of the United States Code to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief (Sec. 3).
-
Voter Registration Changes: H.R. 22 would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship for individuals registering to vote in elections for Federal office (Sec. 4).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Rule Disapproval on Overdrafts: S.J. Res. 18 involves the disapproval of a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions" (Sec. 1).
-
Rule Disapproval on Digital Payments: S.J. Res. 28 involves the disapproval of a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection rule relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications" (Sec. 2).
-
Limiting Court Authority: H.R. 1526 proposes to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief (Sec. 3).
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.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make elections run better? — Requiring proof of citizenship is intended by proponents to increase the integrity of the electoral process. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Limiting the ability of district courts to provide injunctive relief may impact due process and legal recourse. Does this give the federal government more power? — Limiting district court authority for injunctive relief reduces the power of the judiciary relative to other branches.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — The new citizenship verification requirement may potentially restrict voting access. Does this protect the right to vote? — Requiring proof of citizenship for registration may create new barriers to voter access.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The disapproval of BCFP rules on overdrafts and digital payments may reduce consumer protections in financial services.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Disapproving BCFP rules may reduce the regulatory burden on financial institutions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Disapproving overdraft rules and limiting court injunctions may disproportionately impact low-income individuals.
- 4/1/2025
- The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-49, by Mr. Griffith.
- Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 14.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Failed of passage/not agreed to in House On agreeing to the resolution Failed by recorded vote: 206 - 222 (Roll no. 87).
- On agreeing to the resolution Failed by recorded vote: 206 - 222 (Roll no. 87).
- On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 213 (Roll no. 86). (consideration: CR H1397-1398)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 282.
- Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1389; text: CR H1389-1390)
- The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution also provides that H. Res. 23 and H. Res. 164 are laid on the table.
- Bill introduced.
6 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-HR-22: SAVE Act
- 119-HR-1526: NORRA of 2025
- 119-SJRES-18: A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions".
- 119-SJRES-28: A joint resolution 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".
- 119-HRES-287: Providing for the consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res 24, H.R. 1526, and H.R. 22.
- 119-HRES-294: 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.