PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.J.Res.171 / 119th Congress

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 "Bulletin 2022-06: Unfair Returned Deposited Item Fee Assessment Practices".

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Official summary

No official summary is available in the imported record yet.

Who introduced it

Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5] · D–GA

Committees

  • Financial Services Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

    2. Introduced in House

    3. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.J.Res.171 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.J.Res.171 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.J.Res.171 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.J.Res.171 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

    View full prompt & sources

    Read the proposal in plain language

    AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 19, 2026

    Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-04-30 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.

    What it would do

    This resolution proposes to invalidate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s withdrawal of a bulletin about unfair fees for deposited items that are returned. It addresses the withdrawal of that guidance, rather than directly setting fee limits. The supplied text does not explain the practical consequences for customers or financial institutions.

    Check the source
    That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to Bulletin 2022–06: Unfair Returned Deposited Item Fee Assessment Practices (87 Fed. Reg. 66940 (November 7, 2022)) (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-04-30

    How it would work

    If enacted, the resolution would make the withdrawal rule have no force or effect. It identifies the original bulletin through its November 7, 2022 Federal Register reference and the withdrawal through its May 12, 2025 reference.

    Check the source
    Bulletin 2022–06: Unfair Returned Deposited Item Fee Assessment Practices (87 Fed. Reg. 66940 (November 7, 2022)) (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-04-30

    What the record shows

    The supplied source snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Financial Services on April 30, 2026.

    Check the source
    Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:29:43Z. 2026-04-30: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. 2026-04-30: Introduced in House
    Official legislative record · 2026-09-19T23:29:43Z

    Riders & Targeted Benefits

    Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-04-30. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.

    This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.

    Riders

    Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.

    None identified in the reviewed text

    No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.

    Earmarks

    Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.

    None identified in the reviewed text

    No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials; earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.

    Other targeted benefits

    Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.

    None identified in the reviewed text

    No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.

    What this analysis cannot establish

    • The original bulletin and withdrawal rule are not supplied. Their scope, exceptions, legal requirements, and the practical consequences of invalidating the withdrawal cannot be established from this resolution alone.
    • The resolution supplies no separate implementation date, enforcement process, or termination condition.
    • The dated action snapshot does not establish passage or enactment. Its lack of additional actions does not prove that the resolution never advanced or became law.

    Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI