Home  /  Recent Bills  /  Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions".
HOUSE · HJRES 59 119 CONGRESS

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions".

INTRODUCED
February 13, 2025
POLICY AREA
STATUS
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 16.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗
This is a joint resolution, not an ordinary bill

A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Bill vs. resolution, explained →

Summary

This joint resolution seeks to disapprove a final rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) concerning overdraft lending practices of very large financial institutions, as published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 106768). The CFPB rule, titled 'Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions,' establishes regulations governing how banks with over $10 billion in assets may charge fees for overdraft services, including limitations on fee amounts, requirements for transparent disclosure of costs, and restrictions on certain practices deemed abusive or unfair to consumers. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress has the authority to overturn such agency rules through a joint resolution of disapproval, which, if passed by both chambers and signed by the President (or enacted over a veto), nullifies the rule and prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without specific congressional authorization. H.J. Res. 59 represents an exercise of this CRA authority, aiming to block the CFPB's overdraft rule from taking effect. Proponents of the resolution argue that the rule oversteps the CFPB's authority, imposes unnecessary costs on banks that could be passed to consumers, and interferes with market-based pricing of financial services. Opponents contend that the rule is necessary to protect consumers from predatory overdraft fees that disproportionately affect low-income and vulnerable populations, and that overturning it would allow large banks to continue exploitative practices. The measure does not propose a constitutional amendment and follows the standard legislative path for a joint resolution under the CRA.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Protects consumers from excessive and often hidden overdraft fees that can trap low-income individuals in cycles of debt.
+Promotes fairness and transparency in banking practices by requiring clear disclosure of overdraft costs.
+Addresses systemic inequities, as overdraft fees disproportionately burden communities of color and economically vulnerable populations.
+Supports the CFPB's mission to prevent abusive financial practices identified through research and consumer complaints.
+Could save consumers billions of dollars annually in unfair fees, increasing disposable income for essential needs.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Overturning the rule could lead to increased financial harm for consumers who rely on overdraft services but struggle with high fees.
−May signal weak congressional support for robust consumer protection regulations, encouraging further rollbacks.
−Could result in a patchwork of state-level regulations if federal action is withdrawn, creating compliance complexity for banks.
−Might delay or prevent similar protections for smaller financial institutions if the rule is not upheld as a precedent.
−Undermines the independence and expertise of the CFPB in regulating complex financial products.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Restores market discipline by allowing banks to set overdraft fees based on risk and cost rather than government price controls.
+Reduces regulatory burden on large financial institutions, potentially increasing their profitability and capacity to lend.
+Prevents the CFPB from overreaching its statutory authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
+Avoids unintended consequences such as reduced access to overdraft services for consumers who rely on them for short-term liquidity needs.
+Aligns with Republican principles of limited government intervention in private financial contracts.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May limit banks' ability to recover legitimate costs associated with providing overdraft coverage, such as fraud prevention and operational expenses.
−Could encourage irresponsible spending by reducing the financial penalty for overdrawing accounts.
−Undermines efforts to modernize and strengthen consumer financial protection regulations.
−May be seen as siding with large financial institutions over everyday consumers struggling with bank fees.
−Risk of legal challenges if the CRA process is perceived as being used selectively to block rules opposed by industry.

History

Mar 21, 2025
Mar 21, 2025
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-26.
Mar 21, 2025
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-26.
Mar 05, 2025
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 19.
Feb 13, 2025
Feb 13, 2025
Feb 13, 2025
Introduced in House