PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.J.Res.178 / 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 "Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents".

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Official summary

No official summary is available in the imported record yet.

Who introduced it

Rep. Gonzalez, Vicente [D-TX-34] · D–TX

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.178 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.178 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.178 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.178 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 · 2026-05-07 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 cancel the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s withdrawal of an earlier rule concerning examinations for risks to active-duty military members and their covered dependents. If enacted, it would make the withdrawal rule legally ineffective.

    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 Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents (86 Fed. Reg. 32723 (June 23, 2021)) (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-05-07

    How it would work

    The proposed disapproval targets the withdrawal rule identified by the May 12, 2025 Federal Register citation. The earlier examinations rule is identified by the June 23, 2021 citation. The resolution would give the withdrawal rule “no force or effect.”

    Check the source
    relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents (86 Fed. Reg. 32723 (June 23, 2021)) (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-05-07

    What the record shows

    The supplied action snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Financial Services on May 7, 2026.

    Check the source
    Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:31:51Z. 2026-05-07: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. 2026-05-07: Introduced in House
    Official legislative record · 2026-09-19T23:31:51Z

    Riders & Targeted Benefits

    Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-05-07. 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of 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 the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.

    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. A policy’s intended beneficiaries alone do not establish such a benefit. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.

    What this analysis cannot establish

    • Neither the earlier examinations rule nor the withdrawal rule is reproduced. The bundle does not establish what the examinations involve, which dependents qualify, or the specific operational consequences of canceling the withdrawal.
    • The supplied resolution does not specify a separate implementation date, enforcement process, exceptions, or termination conditions.
    • The dated action snapshot does not establish whether the resolution later advanced or became law. This analysis describes the introduced proposal.

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