HR294Introduced in the House
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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.
Introduced by Virginia Foxx, District NC-5
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Checking for a plain-English summary…
Official description
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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.
Where it stands
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
April 8, 2025
How did lawmakers vote?
HouseStage: On Agreeing to the Resolution RC# 92 · April 8, 2025
213
Yes
211
No
9
Absent or Not Voting
433 representatives recorded in this House vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each representative voted
| Representative | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Nicholas Begich | AK | Yes |
| Barry Moore | AL-2 | Yes |
| Shomari Figures | AL-2 | No |
| Mike D. Rogers | AL-3 | Yes |
| Robert Aderholt | AL-4 | Yes |
| Dale Strong | AL-5 | Yes |
| Gary Palmer | AL-6 | Yes |
| Terri Sewell | AL-7 | No |
| Eric Crawford | AR-1 | Yes |
| French Hill | AR-2 | Yes |
Bill history
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-50, by Ms. Foxx.
The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 15.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1473-1480)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 294.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 294, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. McGovern demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1480-1481)
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 211 (Roll no. 91).
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 213 - 211 (Roll no. 92). (text: CR H1473)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.