W. Steube (R-FL)
Providing for the consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res 24, H.R. 1526, and H.R. 22.
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
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
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 House of Representatives to consider several different legislative items. It addresses a joint resolution disapproving a rule by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection regarding overdraft lending at very large financial institutions. It also addresses a joint resolution disapproving a rule regarding the definition of larger participants in the market for digital consumer payment applications. Additionally, the resolution allows for the consideration of H.R. 1526, which aims to limit the authority of district courts to provide 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 United States citizenship for federal election registration.
Yes
- Scored +2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Reducing regulatory oversight from the CFPB can lower compliance burdens for financial institutions.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The disapproval of CFPB rules regarding overdrafts and digital payments may reduce consumer protections in the financial sector.
- Scored -4
Does this give the federal government more power?
Limiting the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief reduces judicial power in favor of other branches.
- Scored -4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Limiting injunctive relief can restrict the ability of individuals to seek immediate judicial remedies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Disapproval of Overdraft Lending Rules: The consideration of S.J. Res. 18 involves disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''. (Sec. 1)
-
Disapproval of Digital Payment Rules: The consideration of S.J. Res. 28 involves 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''. (Sec. 2)
-
Limiting Injunctive Relief: The consideration of H.R. 1526 involves amending title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief. (Sec. 3)
-
Citizenship Requirements for Voting: The consideration of H.R. 22 involves amending 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. (Sec. 4)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Disapproval of Overdraft Lending Rules: The consideration of S.J. Res. 18 involves disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''. (Sec. 1)
-
Disapproval of Digital Payment Rules: The consideration of S.J. Res. 28 involves 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''. (Sec. 2)
-
Limiting Injunctive Relief: The consideration of H.R. 1526 involves amending title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief. (Sec. 3)
-
Citizenship Requirements for Voting: The consideration of H.R. 22 involves amending 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. (Sec. 4)
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 protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Limiting injunctive relief can restrict the ability of individuals to seek immediate judicial remedies. Does this give the federal government more power? — Limiting the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief reduces judicial power in favor of other branches.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — The new documentation requirements may decrease overall voting access for some citizens. Does this protect the right to vote? — Requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration may create new barriers to exercising voting rights.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The disapproval of CFPB rules regarding overdrafts and digital payments may reduce consumer protections in the financial sector.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Reducing regulatory oversight from the CFPB can lower compliance burdens for financial institutions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The reduction in consumer financial protections and limits on judicial relief may disproportionately affect low-income individuals.
- 4/1/2025
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
3 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-HRES-94: Expressing support for the Nation's local public K-12 schools and condemning any actions that would defund public education or weaken or dismantle the Department of Education.
- 119-HRES-282: 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.
- 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.