H.R.es294 - 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 conside…
Summary
H.Res. 294 is a resolution providing for the consideration of several joint resolutions and bills in the House of Representatives. These include S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both disapproving rules submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) regarding overdraft lending and digital payment applications, respectively. The resolution also covers H.R. 1526, which seeks to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and H.R. 22, which aims to amend the National Voter Registration Act to require proof of U.S. citizenship for federal elections.
Expected Effects
The adoption of this resolution will allow the House to debate and vote on the listed joint resolutions and bills. This could lead to the disapproval of the BCFP rules, changes to the authority of district courts regarding injunctive relief, and new requirements for voter registration. Ultimately, the passage of these measures could significantly impact consumer financial protections, the judicial system, and election procedures.
Potential Benefits
- Streamlined legislative process for the specified bills and resolutions.
- Opportunity for Congress to review and potentially overturn regulations issued by the BCFP.
- Potential clarification of the scope of injunctive relief available from district courts.
- Increased integrity of voter registration process, according to proponents of H.R. 22.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential weakening of consumer financial protections through disapproval of BCFP rules.
- Possible limitations on the ability of district courts to provide necessary injunctive relief.
- Risk of disenfranchisement of eligible voters due to stricter voter registration requirements.
- Limited debate time allocated for each measure, potentially hindering thorough consideration.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution itself, H.Res. 294, is procedurally aligned with the Constitution, as Article I, Section 5 grants each House the power to determine the rules of its proceedings. The constitutionality of the underlying bills (H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526) and joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28) is subject to further analysis based on their specific provisions.
H.R. 22, regarding voter registration, could raise concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote based on race. H.R. 1526, limiting injunctive relief, may be scrutinized under Article III, which defines the scope of judicial power.
The joint resolutions disapproving BCFP rules are subject to the agency's statutory authority delegated by Congress, and whether those rules exceed that authority.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).