SJRES 132 — Congress 119
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 "Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents".
Official source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/132
Congress.gov subjects: Administrative law and regulatory procedures; Congressional oversight; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Military personnel and dependents; Finance and Financial Sector
Issues impacted: Defense & National Security (ai, high), Regulation & Agency Oversight (ai, high)
Official bill text (stored)
Plain-text extraction from Congress.gov text formats. Canonical source remains the official URL above. Full text is prioritized for bills with roll-call votes.
119 SJ 132 IS: 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 “Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents”. U.S. Senate 2026-03-18 text/xml EN Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. IIA 119th CONGRESS 2d Session S. J. RES. 132 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 18, 2026 Mr. Reed introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 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 Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents . That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents (86 Fed. Reg. 32723 (June 23, 2021)) (90 Fed. Reg. 20084 (May 12, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
Plain-English summary
Confidence: high · Complexity: moderate · Model: grok-4.5
This is Congress’s way of hitting undo on a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau move. It uses the Congressional Review Act—a fast-track tool that lets lawmakers cancel an agency rule—so the rule would have no force or effect.
Here’s the simple chain. The CFPB once had a setup for examining how banks and lenders treat active-duty service members and their covered dependents. Later the Bureau issued a rule that withdrew that setup. This joint resolution disapproves the withdrawal. Cancel the pull-back, and those servicemember-focused exams stay on the books.
Who might notice? Troops and military families who deal with financial companies the CFPB watches—and the firms that get examined. It doesn’t touch pay, benefits, or the wider military system. It’s only about whether that specific exam focus remains.
The text shows it was introduced in the Senate and sent to the banking committee. Beyond that, we’re just looking at what the resolution itself says.
Related issues
How a vote maps to positions
Impartial mapping: which issue position a Yea vs Nay advances. When a bill has multiple floor votes, each roll can have its own mapping. Bill-level entries (no roll listed) apply as a default when a roll has no specific map. Used for legislator alignment.
All rolls (bill default)
| Issue | Yea advances | Nay advances | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation & Agency Oversight | Disapprove or nullify agency rules | Preserve agency rules and standards | Yea uses a CRA joint resolution to strip force from the CFPB withdrawal rule; Nay would leave that agency withdrawal in effect. |
| Defense & National Security | Military personnel and quality of life | Status quo / reject this change | Yea aims to keep CFPB exam focus on financial risks to active-duty servicemembers and dependents; Nay rejects that change and leaves the withdrawal standing. |