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 "Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only Matching Procedures".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 7, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to reverse a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection decision, effectively reinstating a rule on fair credit reporting name-only matching.
What it actually does
This joint resolution seeks to disapprove a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The rule in question, published on May 12, 2025, withdrew a previous rule concerning "Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only Matching Procedures." By disapproving the withdrawal rule, the resolution aims to nullify the BCFP's action and effectively reinstate the original "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule.
Proponents argue
Proponents of this resolution would argue that the BCFP's withdrawal of the "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule was detrimental to consumers or the credit reporting system. They would likely contend that the original rule provided necessary safeguards or clarity, and its withdrawal created uncertainty or exposed consumers to risks, such as inaccurate credit reports due to insufficient matching procedures. They might also argue that the BCFP overstepped its authority or acted contrary to congressional intent by withdrawing the rule.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this resolution (and by extension, proponents of the BCFP's withdrawal rule) would argue that the original "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule was problematic, perhaps overly burdensome, ineffective, or unnecessary. They might contend that the BCFP's decision to withdraw it was a proper exercise of its regulatory authority, aimed at streamlining processes or addressing unintended consequences of the original rule. They could also argue that Congress should not interfere with agency expertise through the CRA in this instance.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its direct legislative intent.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only Matching Procedures, 86 Fed. Reg. 62468 (November 10, 2021)" (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
Congressional Disapproval of BCFP Rule Withdrawal
This provision states that Congress formally disapproves of a rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) on May 12, 2025. This BCFP rule had withdrawn an earlier rule from November 10, 2021, which dealt with "Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only Matching Procedures." By disapproving the withdrawal, this resolution aims to nullify the BCFP's action and effectively reinstate the original "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule.
Supporters argue
Supporters of this provision argue that the BCFP's decision to withdraw the "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule was misguided and potentially harmful to the integrity of credit reporting. They contend that reinstating the original rule is essential to ensure accurate credit matching, protect consumers from errors, and maintain consistent standards within the fair credit reporting system.
Critics contend
Opponents of this provision, who support the BCFP's withdrawal, would argue that the original "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule was either unnecessary, overly prescriptive, or created unintended burdens for credit reporting agencies. They might assert that the BCFP's withdrawal was a necessary step to allow for more flexible or effective matching procedures, or to reduce compliance costs without compromising consumer protection.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between congressional oversight of agency rulemaking and the BCFP's regulatory autonomy and expertise. It also involves a policy tradeoff between the specific requirements of the "Name-Only Matching Procedures" rule (which proponents see as protective) and the flexibility or alternative approaches that the BCFP sought to enable by withdrawing it (which opponents might see as more efficient).