hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Blocks withdrawal of a rule on fair credit background screening.
Ms. Blunt Rochester
In Senate, placed on calendar for a vote.
This joint resolution aims to disapprove the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's action to withdraw its rule on "Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening." By doing so, it would effectively keep the original rule active. The bill was introduced by Senator Ms. Blunt Rochester and is now on the Senate calendar, meaning it's ready for a floor vote.
Introduced Mar 18, 2026
The bill was introduced by Ms. Blunt Rochester on March 18, 2026, and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. On April 27, 2026, the committee was discharged by petition, and the bill was placed on the Senate legislative calendar. This means the bill is now eligible for consideration and a vote on the Senate floor. For it to become law, it must pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives and be signed by the President.
This bill aims to keep specific rules related to how your credit information can be used for background checks, such as for jobs or housing. If passed, it would prevent the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection from withdrawing its previous rule on "Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening." This means consumers would retain any existing protections under that original rule, and businesses would continue to operate under those established guidelines when performing background screenings.
Supporters Say
Supporters likely want to maintain consumer protections for background checks.
Critics Say
Critics might argue that withdrawing the rule would reduce burdens for businesses.
Supporters of this joint resolution would likely argue that keeping the original "Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening" rule in place is essential for protecting consumers from unfair or inaccurate background checks. They might emphasize the importance of consistent oversight by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Those who supported the withdrawal of the rule, and thus oppose this joint resolution, might argue that the original rule created unnecessary burdens for businesses or that existing laws sufficiently cover background screening practices.