Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 16.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a recently issued CFPB rule. If enacted and signed by the President, it would declare the rule to have no force or effect and would bar the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. The CRA gives Congress a short window to overturn new agency rules and provides an expedited process for doing so.
Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions (89 Fed. Reg. 106768, December 30, 2024).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval resolutions are handled under expedited procedures and need only a simple majority in the Senate because they are not subject to a filibuster. The resolution must be introduced within a limited time after the agency submitted the rule to Congress.
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) under the Congressional Review Act seeks to disapprove and nullify a final rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau titled “Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions” (89 Fed.
Reg. 106768, Dec. 30, 2024).
If enacted, the resolution would render that CFPB rule without force or effect.
Narrow, easily written measure improves House odds; Senate and executive branch support are pivotal and uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type (a resolution that disapproves and nullifies a specific agency final rule), this bill is structurally direct and legally functional: it identifies the rule and states the disapproval and loss of effect. It does not include explanatory findings, budgetary analysis, or implementation details beyond the disapproval itself.
Progressives emphasize consumer-protection losses from repeal
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer-protection losses from repeal
Likely opposed to the resolution because the CFPB rule is seen as a consumer-protection measure limiting harmful overdraft practices at very large banks.
They would view nullification as rolling back safeguards for low-income and vulnerable consumers who face high overdraft fees.
Any acknowledged benefits of nullification would be seen as small compared with consumer risks.
Cautiously ambivalent.
They will weigh consumer protection goals against regulatory burden on very large banks and possible tradeoffs for account access and costs.
Support or opposition depends on perceived evidence of the rule’s benefits, costs, and implementation feasibility.
Likely supportive of the resolution as an appropriate check on CFPB regulation.
They would view nullification as preventing regulatory overreach, protecting bank business models, and avoiding higher costs passed to consumers.
Emphasis on limiting federal bureaucracy and preserving market-driven solutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, easily written measure improves House odds; Senate and executive branch support are pivotal and uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer-protection losses from repeal
Narrow, easily written measure improves House odds; Senate and executive branch support are pivotal and uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type (a resolution that disapproves and nullifies a specific agency final rule), this bill is structurally direct and legally functional: it identifies the rule and states the disapp…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.