Ron Wyden (D-OR)
A joint resolution 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; Permissible Purposes for Furnishing, Using, and Obtaining Consumer Reports".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2266-2267)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
This joint resolution aims to provide congressional disapproval of a specific rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The rule in question involves the withdrawal of a previous rule regarding "Fair Credit Reporting; Permissible Purposes for Furnishing, Using, and Obtaining Consumer Reports." If passed, this resolution would ensure that the Bureau's rule has no force or effect. The resolution was introduced by Mr. Wyden and placed on the calendar.
Yes· 3 of 21
- Scored +2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Maintaining credit reporting restrictions can help protect low-income individuals from unauthorized access to their financial data.
- Scored +2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The stability of credit reporting rules provides predictable consumer protections for middle-income families.
- Scored +2
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Protecting consumer reporting rules can help mitigate potential inequities in how credit access and data are handled.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
By disapproving the withdrawal of the consumer protection rule regarding credit reporting, the resolution effectively allows the underlying restrictive rules on how consumer reports are obtained and used to remain in place, which may limit the Bureau's ability to regulate those processes.
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The resolution seeks to prevent the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from withdrawing its specific rule on credit reporting, thereby maintaining the existing regulatory scope of the agency.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
The provided text does not contain specific details regarding the content of the original or withdrawn rules, so it is not possible to identify specific positive impacts for individuals or groups from this text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
The provided text does not contain specific details regarding the impact of the rule being disapproved, so it is not possible to identify specific negative consequences for individuals or groups from this text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Protecting consumer reporting rules can help mitigate potential inequities in how credit access and data are handled. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Protecting consumer reporting standards maintains financial data security for these households. Would farmers be better off under this? — The preservation of credit data rules provides predictable financial protections. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The maintenance of credit reporting regulations provides a layer of protection for financial data privacy. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Stable and regulated credit reporting can provide a more consistent framework for financial privacy. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Consistent credit reporting protections help safeguard the financial privacy of all community members. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Maintaining credit reporting restrictions can help protect low-income individuals from unauthorized access to their financial data. Would men be better off under this? — The preservation of credit reporting standards maintains consumer financial protections. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The stability of credit reporting rules provides predictable consumer protections for middle-income families. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Maintaining established credit reporting rules protects the financial privacy of these communities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Financial data protections are essential for the economic security of people with disabilities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Maintaining credit reporting rules helps protect the financial privacy of retirees. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Consistent credit reporting standards offer financial privacy protections for rural households. Would students be better off under this? — Maintaining strict credit reporting rules helps protect the financial privacy of students. Would union members be better off under this? — Protecting consumer credit information helps ensure financial security for workers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Predictable consumer protection rules provide financial security in urban economic environments. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Maintaining consumer reporting protections supports financial stability for veterans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The preservation of consumer protection rules helps ensure stability in credit reporting standards. Would women be better off under this? — Ensuring credit reporting rules remain in place helps protect financial privacy across all demographics.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — By disapproving the withdrawal of the consumer protection rule regarding credit reporting, the resolution effectively allows the underlying restrictive rules on how consumer reports are obtained and used to remain in place, which may limit the Bureau's ability to regulate those processes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — By preventing the withdrawal of the rule regarding permissible purposes for consumer reports, the resolution helps maintain existing privacy protections for consumer credit data. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The resolution uses the congressional disapproval process to exert legislative oversight on agency rulemakings. Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution seeks to prevent the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from withdrawing its specific rule on credit reporting, thereby maintaining the existing regulatory scope of the agency.
- 5/13/2026
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2266-2267)
- 4/27/2026
- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 394.
- 3/25/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.