Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
A joint resolution 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 withdrawal of the rule relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-05: Improper Overdraft Opt-In Practices".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 53. Record Vote Number: 123. (consideration: CR S2265-2266)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
How Congress voted
- See who voted how →A vote on whether to start debating something · 05/13/2026
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 involves the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-05: Improper Overdraft Opt-In Practices." If this resolution is passed, the rule submitted by the Bureau shall have no force or effect. The resolution was introduced by Mr. Van Hollen and was placed on the calendar following a committee discharge.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
By disapproving the Bureau's rule, this resolution effectively opposes the withdrawal of guidance intended to prevent improper overdraft opt-in practices, which likely reduces consumer protections regarding bank fees.
- Scored -4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reducing oversight on overdraft opt-in practices negatively impacts low-income consumers who are more susceptible to bank fees.
- Scored -3
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The rollback of consumer financial protections regarding overdrafts can lead to unexpected bank fees for middle-income earners.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Blocked 47 yes · 53 no
05/13/2026 · Roll call 123 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed S.J.Res. 130”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- There are no specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups of people explicitly mentioned in the text of this resolution.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no specific negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups of people explicitly mentioned in the text of this resolution.
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reducing oversight on overdraft opt-in practices negatively impacts low-income consumers who are more susceptible to bank fees. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The rollback of consumer financial protections regarding overdrafts can lead to unexpected bank fees for middle-income earners. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reducing financial consumer protections may negatively affect urban residents who rely heavily on banking services.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — By disapproving the Bureau's rule, this resolution effectively opposes the withdrawal of guidance intended to prevent improper overdraft opt-in practices, which likely reduces consumer protections regarding bank fees.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution acts as a check on a federal agency's rule-making authority by expressing congressional disapproval.
- 5/13/2026
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 53. Record Vote Number: 123. (consideration: CR S2265-2266)
- 4/27/2026
- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 386.
- 3/18/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
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.