Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)

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 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".

S.J.Res. 131 · Senate resolution Finance and Financial Sector

A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors

Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2269-2270)

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

  1. Introduced

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 relates to 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." If passed, the resolution dictates that the submitted rule shall have no force or effect.

Yes· 3 of 5

  • Scored +5

    Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?

    The resolution prevents the withdrawal of guidance meant to stop deceptive marketing regarding the speed and cost of remittance transfers.

  • Scored +4

    Would households on low incomes be better off under this?

    By keeping the circular active, it protects low-income households from deceptive marketing of remittance transfer costs.

  • Scored +4

    Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?

    The resolution helps protect consumers using remittance services, which are frequently used by Hispanic communities.

The opposite

No question was scored the opposite.