H.J. Res. 167 (119th)Bill Overview

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating…

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Apr 30, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 167) uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule that withdrew an earlier CFPB rule on deceptive and unfair collection of medical debt (Regulation F).

If enacted, the resolution states the withdrawal rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively preserving the original October 4, 2024 Regulation F provisions addressing deceptive and unfair medical debt collection.

The measure was introduced by Rep.

Passage30/100

Narrow and implementable but ideologically charged and lacking compromise; procedural hurdles and potential executive opposition reduce chances.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that is clear about its target and effect. Its construction is concise and legally specific, appropriately tailored to the simple procedural-substantive action of nullifying a particular agency rule.

Contention72/100

Progressives emphasize consumer protections and harm reduction.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Federal agencies · ConsumersTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesPreserves federal consumer protections against deceptive or unfair medical debt collection practices.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMaintains rules likely to reduce erroneous reporting of medical debt to credit bureaus.
  • ConsumersProvides continued regulatory clarity for consumers and consumer advocates about collection practices.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersImposes compliance costs on debt collectors and some healthcare providers required to follow the 2024 rule.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay reduce recoveries from medical debt, potentially lowering industry revenue and collections activity.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould indirectly raise administrative costs that might affect healthcare pricing or service models.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize consumer protections and harm reduction.
Progressive90%

Likely strongly supportive.

The resolution preserves CFPB protections against unfair or deceptive medical debt collection practices and keeps consumer safeguards intact.

Supporters would view this as protecting low-income patients and curbing abusive collection tactics.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally favorable but cautious.

Sees value in consumer protections and regulatory certainty, while worrying about compliance costs for small providers and potential unintended consequences.

Would favor narrowly tailored language or implementation guidance to reduce burdens.

Leans supportive
Conservative15%

Likely opposed.

Views the resolution as re-imposing federal regulation that burdens medical providers and debt collectors.

Prefers the CFPB withdrawal to reduce regulatory burden and protect market flexibility.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood30/100

Narrow and implementable but ideologically charged and lacking compromise; procedural hurdles and potential executive opposition reduce chances.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether the President would sign or veto a disapproval resolution
  • Level of floor support in each chamber for this specific CRA action
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize consumer protections and harm reduction.

Narrow and implementable but ideologically charged and lacking compromise; procedural hurdles and potential executive opposition reduce cha…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that is clear about its target and effect. Its construction is concise and legally specific, ap…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis