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 "Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 11, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution aims to prevent the CFPB from withdrawing its policy statement on abusive acts, thereby maintaining a specific framework for consumer protection enforcement.
What it actually does
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove a rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB). Specifically, it targets the CFPB's rule that withdrew its "Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices." If enacted, this resolution would nullify the CFPB's withdrawal, effectively reinstating the original policy statement which outlines how the CFPB interprets and enforces its authority to prohibit abusive acts or practices in consumer finance.
Proponents argue
Proponents of H.J. Res. 180 argue that the CFPB's "Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices" is crucial for providing clarity to the industry on what constitutes abusive behavior, thereby protecting consumers from harmful financial practices. They contend that withdrawing this policy creates regulatory uncertainty and weakens the CFPB's ability to effectively police the market, leaving consumers more vulnerable to exploitation. They believe maintaining the policy statement ensures robust consumer protection and a level playing field for responsible businesses.
Opponents contend
Opponents of H.J. Res. 180 (and thus proponents of the CFPB's withdrawal rule) argue that the original policy statement on abusive acts was overly broad and created regulatory ambiguity, leading to uncertainty for businesses and potentially stifling innovation. They contend that the CFPB's decision to withdraw the policy was a necessary step to streamline regulations, reduce compliance burdens, and allow for a more flexible, case-by-case approach to enforcement, which they believe is more appropriate for addressing evolving market practices without unduly penalizing legitimate businesses.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, requiring minimal time to read and understand its direct action.
Section 1
Congressional Disapproval of CFPB Rule on Abusive Acts or Practices Policy Withdrawal
This provision states that Congress disapproves of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) that relates to the withdrawal of its "Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices." By disapproving this withdrawal rule, the joint resolution aims to prevent the CFPB from removing its existing guidance on what constitutes abusive practices, effectively keeping the original policy statement in force. This action is taken under the authority of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that maintaining the "Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices" is essential for consumer protection, as it provides a clear framework for identifying and prosecuting harmful financial behaviors. They contend that the policy statement offers necessary guidance to both consumers and industry, fostering a fairer marketplace and preventing predatory practices.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that the CFPB's withdrawal of the policy statement was a move towards more flexible and less burdensome regulation. They contend that the original policy was overly prescriptive or vague in certain areas, leading to regulatory uncertainty and potentially hindering innovation in the financial sector. They believe that the CFPB should have the discretion to adapt its enforcement approach without congressional interference.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between providing clear, consistent regulatory guidance to protect consumers and allowing regulatory agencies the flexibility to adapt their enforcement strategies to evolving market conditions without perceived overreach. It also highlights the ongoing debate about the scope and interpretation of "abusive acts or practices" under consumer financial law.